Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL BILL

Read the third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Unemployment and Health

Mrs. Clwyd: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what studies are available to him of the relationship between unemployment and health; what consideration he has given to them; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): My right hon. Friend and I are aware that a number of studies have considered whether there might be any relationship between unemployment and health. All have shown how difficult it is to isolate the factors which contribute to the need for health care. We are committed to targeting health care resources in response to needs, no matter how those needs arise.

Mrs. Clwyd: Is the Minister aware that at least 3,000 people have died because of unemployment, according to official data based on the 1971 census figures? Is he further aware that thousands more people have become chronically sick as a result of unemployment? How many more people have to die because of the Government's policies?

Mr. Roberts: I repeat that there is no direct proven causal connection between unemployment and ill health. I remind the hon. Lady that when she last alleged that connection' in the Welsh Grand Committee in March, and I asked her for the material on which she based her view, she sent me an article from The Lancet, which simply reiterated what I have just said — that it is extremely difficult to prove any causal connection.

Mr. Hubbard-Miles: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a close relationship between strike action, health and unemployment, in that many of the strikes that have been supported —

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about unemployment and health.

Mr. Hubbard-Miles: I was about to point out, Mr. Speaker, that strike action creates unemployment. Does

not strike action in the Health Service lengthen the waiting lists for inpatients and outpatients? How did the strike action in 1981 affect those waiting lists?

Mr. Roberts: There is no doubt, because the figures prove it, that the strike action in the Health Service to which my hon. Friend referred lengthened the waiting lists.

Mr. Foot: Do not all the reports on the valley towns show the deepening crisis and the social consequences — no doubt partly due to mass unemployment, but also to other factors? Rather than making such complacent replies, why do the Minister and his right hon. Friend not go to the Cabinet to try to obtain the additional resources needed to fight the consequences of their policies?

Mr. Roberts: Of course there are reports from the valley towns, but, quite frankly, the reports to which the right hon. Gentleman referred and their conclusions are certainly not helped by, for example, strike action. There is a housing problem in the Cynon Valley, represented by the hon. Lady, but it was not improved by the coal strike.

Mr. Geraint Howells: May I ask—

Mr. Rowlands: What has the coal strike to do with it?

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must get back to unemployment and health.

Mr. Howells: Will the Minister tell us how many of those unemployed in the Health Service in Wales will be unemployed next year?

Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman knows that there has been a tremendous increase in staffing in the NHS in Wales.

Mr. Coleman: How many?

Mr. Roberts: I shall answer the hon. Gentleman. There was a 15·6 per cent. increase in front-line staff in the NHS in Wales between 1979 and 1984.
On current pay awards, it is very much to be hoped that they can be contained within the increased allocations given to health authorities in Wales, with, perhaps, a certain amount more being saved by authorities.

Mr. Barry Jones: The Minister would do well to read today's Western Mail, in which Mr. Rodger Dobson's compelling and disturbing article relates the link between unemployment and bad health. Does the Minister understand that the Sneddon family, and tens of thousands like them throughout Wales, desperately need the hope of work? Was not the brutal message from Brecon that the people of Wales want more work and an end to unemployment?

Mr. Roberts: One of the messages of Brecon and Radnor was that the Labour party has little to crow about today. Of course we all want a decline in unemployment.

Labour Statistics

Sir Anthony Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has as to the percentage of workers in Wales employed in firms, industries, services or processes that have been established in Wales since 1965.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): Comprehensive information is not available.


However, new manufacturing units known to have opened in Wales since the end of 1965 and still in production directly provide some 72,000 manufacturing jobs, some 35 per cent. of the total number of employees in employment in manufacturing as at December 1984.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is it not clear that those figures do not give the whole picture? Should not the Government concentrate greater resources on promoting the growth of new jobs and new industries and not on attempting to arrest the necessary decline of some traditional industries?

Mr. Edwards: Although I agree that we should not attempt to arrest necessary decline, the introduction of new technology and the modernisation of existing industry is an important contribution to economic recovery. Some 400 manufacturing plants have opened since May 1979 and they already provide about 18,000 jobs. Many have only just started to take on employees and will provide considerably more jobs in due course.

Mr. Allan Rogers: I am aware that the Secretary of State and his Department have done much to attract new industries to south Wales, but will he devote the same attention to existing industries? When W. Ribbons in the Rhonnda wanted some help from the Department, the Secretary of State was swanning around Finland. What did he bring back from Finland?

Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman might be unaware that I went at the invitation of a company which directly employs 250 people in north Wales and which will provide 800 or 900 jobs in the forestry industry in Wales. I also visited a company which is the 50 per cent. shareholder of British Tissues, which employs many hundreds of people in south Wales. As the hon. Gentleman says, helping the development of existing industry is important. I hope that he will not belittle our efforts to ensure that those industries are strengthened and enlarged.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government have a creditable record in promoting new jobs since 1979, especially through overseas investment in Wales? Does he further agree that that record could be even better if it were not for the negative chorus from the Opposition, who revel in high unemployment and all things unattractive?

Mr. Edwards: Inward investment from overseas is undoubtedly an important contributory factor to the modernisation of Welsh industry, but we should not exaggerate. Of the 1,000 or so manufacturing units which still exist and have come into being during the past 20 years, only about 65 represent direct inward investment, whereas nearly half represent small companies starting up new businesses. That type of indigenous development is important for the future.

Mr. Barry Jones: The right hon. Gentleman is far too complacent. He has not told us, for example, about Inmos today. Does he realise that under his regime 103,000 manufacturing jobs have disappeared in Wales since he took office? Did not the Brecon electorate brutally dismiss his policies as wretched failures? Is it not the case that the policies must be changed or the endangered species behind him will lose their seats?

Mr. Edwards: I do not believe that anything that I said to the House about the changes necessary in industry showed complacency. What is undoubtedly a matter of

congratulation is that we are attracting new jobs. Since last Question Time there has been the announcement from Control Data at Brynmawr of 100 new jobs, from Shopco (U.K.) Ltd of 100 new jobs and that NDN Aircraft is to manufacture new aircraft in Cardiff creating 100 new jobs. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the announcement by Seddons in the Delyn enterprise zone that it will take on about 250 people. I am not for one moment suggesting that we do not need a great deal more, but to suggest that that record of attracting new business and new industry smacks of complacency is absurd.

Secondary Schools (Expenditure)

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how much was spent per pupil in secondary schools in Wales in the most recent year for which figures are available; and how this compares with the figure for 1978–79, at constant prices.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. John Stradling Thomas): At 1983–84 prices, spending per secondary school pupil in Wales was £905 in 1978–79 and £1,006 in 1983–84. That is an increase of 11 per cent.

Mr. Knox: Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures show satisfactory improvements since 1978–79? Do the Government intend to make more resources available for Welsh language education?

Mr. Stradling Thomas: The figures are satisfactory, yes, but I am never satisfied. The charge of complacency levelled against us on any issue is a parrot cry. The figures are a refutation of the parrot cry about cuts. There has been no cut. There has been an 11 per cent. increase. In reply to the second part of my hon. Friend's question, I have been giving careful consideration to calls for the establishment of a Welsh language education development body. When I met a deputation of six different Welsh language groups on that issue on 25 June—

Mr. Ray Powell: Come on. The hon. Gentleman is taking too long.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Stradling Thomas: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) has a genius for interruption, but makes little constructive contribution. At that meeting I made it clear that I would not hold out any false hopes, because I must consider resources for Welsh language education alongside all other competing calls, and reconcile my final decision within the overriding public expenditure constraints, which are essential if we are to maintain the economy on the right lines.

Mr. Rowlands: Will the hon. Gentleman give similar figures in relation to school books and school library expenditure? I do not know whether he has children attending Welsh secondary schools. We have, and we notice the dog-eared books that they are bringing home, the lack of books and the shared books. Will we return to the slate and the chalk under this Government?

Mr. Stradling Thomas: Capitation and the management of their resources is entirely a matter for the local authorities and not for central Government.

Mr. Grist: Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the other changes in secondary schools in Wales since 1979, as elsewhere in the United Kingdom, has been the sharp


fall in the number of pupils, and that resources for pupils might be better employed were some authorities to consider school amalgamations.

Mr. Stradling Thomas: Yes, of course, Mr. Speaker. I accept that local education authorities have a difficult task to perform against a background of falling rolls. I have asked them to come to see me so that we may discuss that matter constructively to see how best it can be resolved.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Minister appreciate that the rosy picture that he is trying to paint is not borne out by the facts? For example, the teachers' dispute drags on, and without a contented labour force to take charge of the schools our children will be at a disadvantage. When will the Government provide the means to bring about a just settlement for the teachers?

Mr. Stradling Thomas: As the House will be aware, the Government's position has been made clear all along. There is no question of more money to fund an excessive public sector wages settlement. Furthermore, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that responsibility for the teachers' pay negotiations does not rest with me.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Parry: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the latest level of unemployment in North Wales.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Current levels of unemployment remain high, but considerable progress continues to be made in developing the area and attracting new investment.

Mr. Parry: Is the Minister aware that, under this Government, unemployment in north Wales has nearly doubled? Is that not a disgrace? Does the Secretary of State accept that job losses in the steel and textile industries, particularly in the Flint area, affect regions such as Merseyside, which, over the weekend, saw another 700 jobs lost at the Plessey factory at Huyton? When does the Secretary of State expect the economy to upturn so that we can provide more jobs in north Wales and Merseyside?

Mr. Edwards: I am aware of the problems in north Wales and Merseyside. That is one of the reasons why the Government have spent some £350 million on roads and industrial infrastructure and enterprise zones in Clwyd since we came into office in 1979.

Mr. Raffan: I joined my right hon. Friend in welcoming last week's announcement that the garment manufacturer Seddons is to set up a new plant in Delyn enterprise zone, employing initially 140 people. Is he aware that Delyn borough council expects to make a further significant job announcement within the next month?

Mr. Edwards: I noticed Mr. Sharps doing a television broadcast recently in which he was optimistic about the prospects for that enterprise trust. I congratulate the local authority on the drive and energy that it has been putting behind the zone.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: When will the Secretary of State be in a position to make an announcement about the availability of EC aid in areas of rural north Wales which are not at the moment within assisted area zones?

Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we are still considering that matter. I cannot gibe him a firm date.

Mr. Barry Jones: The right hon. Gentleman is too serene in his ignorance. Is it not the case that in Clwyd and Gwynedd there are 37,000 jobless people and some 2,000 vacancies? Has he the guts to tell the Prime Minister to change her economic policy, or does he remain her lackey?

Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman should be aware, if he visits his constituency, of the considerable new investment there, and the fact that it is one of the most attractive areas in the whole of the United Kingdom for foreign investment and for new companies setting up. That should be a matter for pleasure and congratulation.

Dr. Marek: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest unemployment figures available for the Wrexham area and for Wales.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Some 7,736 and 173,422 respectively.

Dr. Marek: The Secretary of State knows that he was unable to do anything about the Courtaulds closure. Dunlop is now proposing to close, and the Secretary of State, in an answer to me on Friday, was able to say only that he could take into account Clwyd's detailed proposals for allocation of planned resources. Will the Secretary of State do something to avert the closure at Dunlop? If he cannot, how long will he stay as Secretary of State, with the appalling level of unemployment in the Principality? The right hon. Gentleman should either do something about it or resign.

Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman should remember that in the past 12 months, in the Wrexham area, Laura Ashley, Metal Box, F.W. Bender, TetraPak and Sharp Corporation have announced new or major expansion projects. I have already pointed out that the Government have spent at least £350 million on industrial measures in Clwyd, and we shall continue to use every means at our disposal to attract new investment to the area.

Mr. Abse: Given the fruitless hard work that the Secretary of State for Wales recently put into the Brecon and Radnor by-election, and as unemployment was one of the main issues at Brecon, what statement will the right hon. Gentleman make on the by-election result? Does he not think that he owes to Wales, now that it has given its verdict on his employment policy, a full statement as to what new steps are to be taken? Will he merely repeat the old lessons and tell Wales that under this Government it must endure the same sort of unemployment as we have seen in the past few years? Has the Minister no comment to make on the Brecon and Radnor result?

Mr. Edwards: All political parties should consider carefully the results of by-elections. I shall do so. The Labour party will no doubt also consider the complete panic of the electorate when it suddenly realised that might elect a Labour Member of Parliament. When one watches and listens to the performance of the hon. Gentleman, who can blame it?

Sir Anthony Meyer: Just which of the policies being advanced by the Opposition does my right hon. Friend consider would be most productive in bringing fresh jobs into Wales?

Mr. Edwards: One feature of the Brecon and Radnor by-election was that the Opposition parties did not advance any policies, and that they were careful not to do so. The only close ally and supporter of the Labour party who advanced any policies was Mr. Scargill. He was the gentleman whom everybody on the Opposition Benches supported throughout the strike but who was so destructive of Welsh industry and Welsh employment.

Mr. Anderson: How would the Secretary of State explain to the man on the top deck of the Brecon omnibus the logic of falling regional aid at a time of rising unemployment? Does the new "middle way" include a rethink of regional policy?

Mr. Edwards: I know enough about Brecon and Radnor to know that they do not have double-decker buses there.

Mr. Ray Powell: Despite the arrogance of the Secretary of State in his replies to some of the questions, particularly about unemployment in Wales and the Brecon and Radnor by-election, is he prepared to offer the House and the country an apology for his statement regarding disabled people when he referred to the Brecon and Radnor by-election?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is very wide of this question, which deals with unemployment.

Mr. Edwards: None the less, Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to say that I have already written to a number of people expressing my regret and apologies for a carelessly phrased off-the-cuff remark that I should not have made. As someone who has introduced a major measure for the improvement of the care of the mentally handicapped and who has a close relative who is mentally handicapped, the last thing that I should wish to do would be to cause offence. Of course I apologise.

Mr. Anderson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take points of order later. We are running behind time.

Vale of Glamorgan (Road Traffic)

Sir Raymond Gower: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what recent complaints and reports he has received of excessive traffic of heavy vehicles on roads for which he is responsible within the area of the Vale of Glamorgan; what discussions he has had with the highway authority on the matter; and what steps are contemplated to reduce or divert such traffic.

Mr. John Stradling Thomas: I am responsible only for trunk roads within the Vale of Glamorgan area, but I am aware of the problems that have arisen on county roads and have received representations from my hon. Friend and others about the heavy lorries travelling through Dinas Powys, Llysworney and Colwinston. I hope that the matter can be resolved in the very near future.

Sir Raymond Gower: Is my hon. Friend aware that the excessive traffic of heavy vehicles on some of these roads has underlined the need for bypasses of Dinas Powys, Aberthin Llysworney and Colwinston? The county council asserts that the lack of capital funds limits its ability to carry out these projects. Will my hon. Friend discuss these matters with the county council?

Mr. Stradling Thomas: My officials are in touch with the county council and I know that it has traffic management proposals in mind for the immediate future. It has in mind proposals for a bypass of Dinas Powys and in addition is considering the possibility of traffic management measures. I am also informed that the county council is considering whether to include in its programme the proposed bypass of Llysworney. However, I must remind the House that the priority given to any of these road improvement schemes and to any scheme at Colwinston is a matter for the county council.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Barry Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many people in Wales are jobless; how many were jobless in May 1979; by how much the total has increased as a figure and as a percentage; and what is the current figure of long-term unemployed.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: On 13 June 1985 there were 173,422 unemployed claimants in Wales. The increase over the estimated equivalent figure of 77,200 in May 1979 is 96,222 or 124·6 per cent. The latest figure for the long-term unemployed relates to April 1985, when 75,573 had been unemloyed in Wales for over one year.

Mr. Jones: Given those frightening figures, why cannot Wales benefit from a major change in economic policy? Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand that the Welsh people want their welfare state strengthened and unemployment tackled with urgency? Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that the rejection at Brecon and Radnor of his personal nominee, Mr. Butler, who was an adviser of the Prime Minister and the right hon. Gentleman, represents a crushing vote of no confidence in Welsh Office Ministers?

Mr. Edwards: I agree that the Brecon and Radnor electorate want the welfare state to be strengthened. That aim will continue to be the Government's policy. The economic growth that is taking place provides the best guarantee for future employment. I very much welcome the recent statements by the CBI Welsh Council, which show the growing optimism of those in industry for economic activity in Wales.

Sir Raymond Gower: Is there not much evidence throughout the Western world that politicians and other people are most anxious that economic recovery should lead to a reduction in unemployment? Is it not nonsense to pretend that there are people in this country who want high unemployment?

Mr. Edwards: Yes, Sir.

Mr. James Callaghan: Whatever is happening in the rest of the Western world, can the right hon. Gentleman give my constitutuents any reassurance about the proposed closure of the Cardiff veterinary investigation centre, with the halving of staff numbers, and the possible loss of 200 staff in the Export Credits Guarantee Department? This morning I received representations from two constituents who are worried about their future employment.

Mr. Edwards: The right hon. Gentleman knows that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food put forward a consultative paper on the future of the veterinary service. We are considering representations on that matter. On the ECGD, I understand that the


management has put forward some proposals for future re-organisation within the ECGD. At present, no details of the manpower consequences are available. This matter is at an early stage of consultation.

Mr. Raffan: Will my right hon. Friend remind the Labour party that last year Wales obtained nearly a quarter of the total jobs created by inward investment in the United Kingdom — four times as many as Labour's feeble Welsh Office team created during the Labour Government's last year of office?

Mr. Edwards: That is true. We have had that remarkable record for a part of the United Kingdom that represents 5 per cent. of the population. I am glad to say that, of the 1,000 or so manufacturing units in Wales that are known to have opened during the past 20 years, about 400–40 per cent.— have opened since May 1979.

Mr. Coleman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the unemployment percentages that he cited in answer to the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) will he further increased by redundancies at BP Llandarcy and Star Wrought Products at Briton Ferry? One thousand jobs have been lost during the past three months in the borough of Neath. When will the right hon. Gentleman change his regional policies? Does he not realise that, because of the policies pursued by the Labour Government, when he came to office unemployment in Neath was much lower than it is now? When will the right hon. Gentleman do something about this? Why does he not get out?

Mr. Edwards: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would at least welcome the decrease of about 5,000 in unemployment in Wales compared with last month and the considerable relative improvement in Neath's position. That improvement was introduced during the last regional policy review.

M4 (Coryton Junction)

Mr. Gareth Wardell: asked the Secretary of State for Wales when he now expects to carry out repairs to the area of badly pitted road surface on the westbound carriageway of the M4 at a point about three and a half miles east of the Coryton junction.

Mr. John Stradling Thomas: I am pleased to say that repair work was completed on 24 June.

Mr. Wardell: On 14 February the Minister told me that remedial work would take place as soon as weather conditions improved. As it has taken a considerable time to remedy the position, will the hon. Gentleman look seriously at the possibility of lighting the whole of the M4 in Wales? When repairs are needed, potential accident spots occur. Better lighting would reduce risks and the danger to lives when people are travelling on the motorway.

Mr. Stradling Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is quite right that I advised him on 14 February last that remedial works would take place as soon as weather conditions permitted, because repairs of this nature are best carried out in favourable weather. The point about lighting is quite outwith the terms of the question, but I shall consider the matter. I give no undertaking.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: As the road in question is located in my constituency, may I urge my hon. Friend to squash

flat any notion that the M4 is a disincentive in attracting people to come to Cardiff, as has happened with the way in which the Severn bridge has been hyped up out of all proportion by the media and by Opposition Members?

Mr. Stradling Thomas: I am in complete sympathy with the point of view of my hon. Friend. I believe that a disservice has been done by exaggerating any difficulties that may have occurred at the Severn bridge or anywhere else on the M4.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Is it not time that the Welsh Office took more interest in what is happening on the M4? For instance, can the hon. Gentle man tell the House what steps have been taken by his Department to notify the disabled of their right to travel free over the Severn bridge, particularly bearing in mind the exorbitant increases that are in operation?

Mr. Stradling Thomas: I will, of course, look into the matter to see exactly what steps have been taken, and will let the hon. Gentleman know. I totally reject any suggestion that my Department has not been very closely involved in anything to do with the M4 in relation to its importance to the south Wales economy.

Sheepmeat Regime

Mr. D. E. Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he is satisfied with the operation of the European Economic Community's sheepmeat regime in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Yes, Sir. The sheepmeat regime has brought substantial benefits to Welsh sheep producers, who have a guaranteed price for fat lambs under the sheep variable premium scheme. Breeders also benefit from an annual premium on ewes and the breeding flock has been increasing by 2 to 3 per cent. a year. In the last full marketing year, 1983–84, the regime resulted in payments of £56·8 million to Welsh sheep producers.

Mr. Thomas: How can the Secretary of State be satisfied with the operation of a regime which is now being used to penalise sheepmeat producers in the United Kingdom, and in Wales in particular? Is he satisfied with the present gap operating in the premia and what is his view of the future of the premium? Will it be phased out by the Community?

Mr. Edwards: We have fought resolutely for the sheepmeat regime, which this Government introduced, and which has led to the substantial increase in the flock in Wales. I believe that is has made an enormous contribution to the rural economy. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it was not possible to secure entirely satisfactory modifications to the clawback arrangements, to which I think he was referring. However, we shall continue to press for changes to alleviate the difficulties caused by clawback. The exemption from clawback for our exports outside the Community has been renewed to the end of 1987.

Mr. Barry Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the industry wants him to make a better fight for the sheep farmer than he did for the small dairy farmer?

Mr. Edwards: As I pointed out, we are talking about the sheepmeat regime, which was introduced by this Government in 1980 and which has been the biggest boost to the sheep industry in Wales that there has ever been.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Ray Powell: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest figures for unemployment in (a) Ogmore, (b) Mid-Glamorgan and (c) Wales; what were the equivalent figures in May 1979; and what is the percentage increase in each case.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: On 13 June 1985 the number of unemployed claimants were 4,545, 34,657 and 173,422 respectively. In Wales the comparable figure is 77,200 in May 1979, representing an increase of 124·6 per cent. A comparable claimant-based figure for 1979 in Ogmore and Mid-Glamorgan is not available.

Mr. Ray Powell: Does the Secretary of State realise that the 124 per cent. increase since 1979 about which he talks means, so far as Ogmore is concerned, that, with the closure of St. John's colliery, as a result of which 830 miners have lost their jobs, the percentage increase could rise to such an extent that 45 per cent. of male people in Maesteg will be seeking employment? Does he not think it is time that the Government, as a result of their defeat in the Brecon and Radnor by-election, changed their economic and social policies, and looked seriously at communities such as Maesteg, which suffer so badly when a colliery is closed?

Mr. Edwards: I understand the problems of communities such as Maesteg, but during the past year projects from Invacare, Acrian, Align Rite, Biomet and the Chronar Corporation have been announced in the Bridgend area and promise about 1,200 new jobs. There are problems among the older industries, but we are succeeding in attracting many of the new technologies and new industries to the area.

Mr. Hubbard-Miles: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the statements of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) would sound rather more convincing if he had not supported the miners' strike, despite the fact that 70 per cent. of the miners in his constituency voted against it? However, we are all concerned about unemployment and I should like to know whether my right hon. Friend has any news about future employment prospects at Borg Warner at Kenvig Hill, which are extremely important to my constituency?

Mr. Edwards: My hon. Friend will know that about 600 jobs at Borg Warner have been under threat for a considerable time. It was with a good deal of pleasure that we heard that the company is proposing a new use for the factory and has applied for selective financial assistance, which is being considered by the Welsh Industrial Development Advisory Board. I am deeply concerned that the proposals that the Borg Warner management has put to the work force appear to have been rejected. I hope that the members of the work force will consider carefully the future of the plant. It would be tragic if the prospect of 600 secure jobs were put at risk by a careless and irresponsible approach to a serious proposition from the management.

Oral Answers to Questions — PAYMASTER GENERAL

Government Expenditure

Mr. Chapman: asked the Paymaster-General how many staff in his Department have the responsibility for providing the Treasury with up-to-date information on central Government expenditure; and if he will make a statement.

The Paymaster-General (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): One member of my Department's staff, a senior executive officer, is responsible for providing the Treasury with details of the amounts being paid out to meet the claims arising against central Government accounts during the course of the day's banking operations. In addition, three times each month computer tapes containing detailed analyses of voted expenditure authorised by Government Departments during the previous month are sent to the Treasury. These are produced by a computer system maintained by 13 clerical and technical staff.

Mr. Chapman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. In view of the deserved reputation that his Department has in its efficient role in acting as the Government's banker, will he tell us whether he has received any representations or complaints about his role? Does he accept that it would be a good idea if the responsibilities of his Department were extended so that the Department acted as the banker for local authorities, bearing in mind the continual overshoot of local councils, which are responsible for about a quarter of all public expenditure?

Mr. Gummer: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that my staff in the Paymaster General's office have a deserved reputation for carrying out the Department's role as the Government's banker extremely efficiently. If that role were to be extended, that would be a matter for the Treasury. There is no doubt that the staff do an extremely good job.

Mr. Winnick: Would it not be useful if the hon. Gentleman, as Paymaster General and chairman of the Conservative party, informed the Cabinet that there is no enthusiasm throughout the country for further public spending cuts? Surely that is the No. 1 lesson from the result of the Brecon and Radnor by-election. Why do Ministers go on about the presentation of policy when what is at issue is the policy itself?

Mr. Gummer: If the hon. Gentleman had bothered to examine the facts he would have learnt that Government expenditure cuts in the National Health Service, for example, amounted to considerable increases in spending in real terms. The Government are now spending more per child in school than at any time in our history, again in real terms. The hon. Gentleman would do better to check his facts before speaking in the House. If he did that, he would never speak.

Mr. Stokes: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the way in which he has some say in looking after the nation's finances with such a minute staff. Does he realise that not everyone shares the desire of the Opposition for greater public expenditure? Does he further realise that if public expenditure is to be reduced, even his small staff could become smaller still?

Mr. Gummer: We should boast about the expansion of public expenditure where that is a good thing, and provide better services and boast, too, about the cutting of public expenditure when that reduces the waste that was so much a mark of the Labour Government.

Mr. James Callaghan: Is it the Government's policy to make cuts and represent them as increases, or to make increases and represent them as cuts?

Mr. Gummer: It is the Government's policy not to find themselves going to the International Monetary Fund as a debtor nation, but to continue to be a nation respected throughout the world for financial probity, which was not the mark of the Government when the right hon. Gentleman was Prime Minister.

Mr. Knox: Will my hon. Friend ensure that none of the civil servants at present concerned with the administration of pensions will be transferred to providing other statistics for the Treasury?

Mr. Gummer: That certainly would not be a good thing, because since 1984 there have been only two complaints from Members of Parliament about the administration of pensions, although we provide 1·1 million pensioners with their pensions every year. That is a very good comment about my staff, in this, their 150th anniversary year.

Mr. Rowlands: As chairman of the Conservative party, does the hon. Gentleman support the view that the disastrous decline of the Conservative vote in Brecon and Radnor is due entirely to presentation, not policies?

Mr. Speaker: A bit wide, I think.

Mr. Gummer: The question asked by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) has little to do with my responsibilities as Paymaster General, but I am willing to answer it in my role as chairman of the Conservative party. The answer is simply this—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Two wrongs will not make it right. We should stick to the Paymaster General's responsibilities.

Mr. Gummer: I shall answer as Paymaster General. We monitor Government expenditure, and we see clearly that the Government are spending more money in the areas that matter and less where it would be wasted.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Bearing in mind that my hon. Friend acts as the Government's banker, is he satisfied that his 840 members of staff are monitoring properly and most carefully the payment of all cheques coming out of the Crawley offices? Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is his aim not only to reduce the number of cheques being paid but to reduce public expenditure, something of which the Conservative party should be proud?

Mr. Gummer: I adhere to the principle that this nation should reduce the proportion of its wealth that is spent by the Government and continue to increase the proportion of its wealth that is spent by the people who make it. That must be the principle of government. It is also the principle of government to ensure that those in need are effectively helped. For that reason we have increased Government expenditure in the areas where it provides decent homes, schools, Health Service facilities and pensions. I am proud of our record in all those areas.

Mr. Anderson: On the principle of spending more money where it matters and less where it goes to waste, is the Paymaster General proud of the fact that since 1979 expenditure on overseas aid has decreased by 18 per cent. and is now at the lowest level ever?

Mr. Gummer: I am proud of the fact that in a period of extreme difficulty we have a better record on overseas aid than almost any other country in the world.

Dr. McDonald: Is the Paymaster General aware that, in spite of the hard work of the staff in his Department, Ministers, including the Chancellor, who does not seem to know whether he has found a "middle way" or, public spending, have made confused and conflicting statements about the role of public spending? How many staff in his Department will be transferred from providing information to providing public relations, in a belated effort, following the Brecon disaster, to soften the Government's hard-nosed image on public spending? Will not that PR in itself be a substitute for any effort to restore public spending cuts?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Lady seems to have failed to remember that the disaster of Brecon and Radnor was the fact that her leader placed his own personal reputation on the line — [Interruption.] — and three quarters of her right hon. and hon. Friends went down to show that he did. The fact of Brecon and Radnor was this: once the people there feared that they might have a Labour Member of Parliament they did everything in their power to make sure that Labour's candidate did not win.

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Llanwern Steelworks

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he has had any recent discussions with the chairman of the British Steel Corporation concerning the future of Llanwern steelworks.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I met the chairman in May and in June for wide-ranging discussions.

Mr. Hughes: How much longer is the haggling, which is doing untold harm to the steelworks, to go on? Why do the Government not resolve to reaffirm the stand taken by the Secretary of State for the Environment in December 1982, which was that the five integrated plants should remain? Why do they not also announce the Concast scheme for Llanwern?

Mr. Edwards: In a debate in which the hon. Gentleman took part, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry said that the corporate plan would be presented to the Government by the end of July. In the light of that, I have nothing further to add, except to repeat that I am confident about the future of Llanwern.

Mr. Foot: Will the Secretary of State finally bring this matter to a conclusion? Can he not tell the country and the House that Llanwern will go ahead, and that it has a wonderful record? Will he finally make his mind up on the matter?

Mr. Edwards: I have made my position and my confidence in the future of Llanwern absolutely clear. The right hon. Gentleman, who has had experience of the


closure of steelworks while in government, will know that there are many difficult issues to be resolved about the future capacity and plans of the industry. The proper way for the Government to proceed is to wait for the proposals of the British Steel Corporation in its corporate plan, and then to take decisions on them.

Sir Raymond Gower: Do not the splendid performances of both management and employees at the works at Llanwern and Port Talbot entitle them to some assurance that both these works will continue for a long time?

Mr. Edwards: On many occasions I have said that the splendid performance of the workers at those two steel plants is by far the best guarantee of their future. As I have said, at present we are making a massive investment in Port Talbot, and I have great confidence in the future of Llanwern. While I have been in government I have, fortunately, never had to consider any proposal from the BSC for the closure of Llanwern. Therefore, some of the threats and allegations made have been purely hypothetical.

Oral Answers to Questions — THE ARTS

Mr. Freud: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take points of order afterwards. Otherwise, it will take time out of the hon. Gentleman's question, which is No. 21.

Mr. Freud: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take the point of order afterwards. Otherwise it will take time out of this short question period.

Mr. Freud: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The point of order is on the arts.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take it afterwards. Does the hon. Gentleman want to ask question 21?

Mr. Freud: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have no authority to allow injury time for questions. Does the hon. Gentleman want to ask question 21?

Mr. Freud: Yes.

Objects in Lieu of Tax

Mr. Freud: asked the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State answering in respect of the Arts what recent representations the Minister for the Arts has received concerning the allocation for acceptances of works of art in lieu of tax; and whether he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): My noble Friend is advised on the allocation of acceptance-in-lieu offers by the Museums and Galleries Commission. He occasionally receives other representations from interested parties.

Mr. Freud: While we have great respect for the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), who is answering, does he accept that already nobody answers for the arts in this House, and that we are now being presented with the monkey twice removed from the organ grinder?
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we are in danger of losing our heritage because of the wholly unacceptable position that pertains to works of art which are accepted in lieu of tax. Will he bear in mind that the Government make good money from the arts market? Will he also bear in mind the Government's promise to look at tax incentives for the arts? We have them for the live arts. Will he please extend those incentives to the arts in respect of pictures and museums?

Sir George Young: On the first point, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Environment, the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), wrote to the hon. Gentleman explaining that he had to be in Helsinki from 7 to 10 July to lead the United Kingdom delegation to the international convention on long-range transboundary air pollution. On the substantive question, the hon. Gentleman knows that the Government are reviewing arrangements for funding acceptance-in-lieu transactions. My noble Friend hopes to make an announcement at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Alan Howarth: While I welcome what my hon. Friend said, does he agree that if the system is to fulfil its purpose it will not be satisfactory simply to lift the amount available for acceptance-in-lieu transactions from £2 million to some other arbitrary ceiling? Does he agree that we should unequivocally commit ourselves to ensuring that it will be possible to retain a strictly limited category of pre-eminent items for our heritage?

Sir George Young: I can tell my hon. Friend that the more fundamental issues that he just mentioned are covered by the review. I shall ensure that my noble Friend is made aware of my hon. Friend's strong views.

Mr. Sheldon: Will the hon. Gentleman relate to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment who usually answers questions on the arts in this Chamber the dissatisfaction of the House that he is away dealing not with the arts but with something different? That is unsatisfactory, because his first duty should be to the House. Will the Minister bear in mind the fact that the Getty money and the large sums that are available for the purchase of works of art mean that the Treasury will have to reconsider these matters? It has lost some good opportunities for obtaining bargains. We look forward to a further consideration of such matters by the Treasury, guided by the Minister for the Arts.

Sir George Young: As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the Treasury is an important partner in this review. The points that he has just made will be considered by all those who take part in it. I hope that my noble Friend will be able to announce the conclusion of the review before long.

Mr. Faulds: Does the Minister agree that there has been a quite unacceptable delay in rescinding this ludicrous ceiling on the in lieu arrangements? Does he realise that all of us in this House back the Minister in his wish to smash this ceiling and ensure the retention of these treasures in Britain? Will he manage to prevail upon his hon. and noble Friend — or whatever the fellow is called — to get the Treasury to pull its costive finger out on this issue?

Sir George Young: I cannot accept the allegation that there has been undue delay. On 24 April my noble Friend announced that the review would take place, and I have


just said that he hopes to make an announcement on its conclusions in the very near future. That is not too long a period for a review on such an important subject.

National Heritage Memorial Fund

Mr. Chapman: asked the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State answering in respect of the Arts how many persons employed in the Office of Arts and Libraries have direct or indirect responsibility in connection with the administration of the National Heritage Memorial Fund: and if he will make a statement.

Sir George Young: The National Heritage Memorial Fund is an autonomous body and its administration is undertaken by its staff. However, a small percentage of the time of three Office of Arts and Libraries staff is given to administrative issues associated with the fund.

Mr. Chapman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Although I appreciate that the fund is an autonomous body, does my hon. Friend accept that when the fund receives special applications for grants to save what, by any criteria, are important examples of Britain's great architectural heritage, the Department should sympathetically consider continuing to provide extra financial assistance to the fund so that it may discharge its duties for the benefit of our people?

Sir George Young: As my hon. Friend knows, the Government made a special allocation of £25 million earlier this year to enable the fund to help to ensure the future of Weston Park, Kedleston and Nostell Priory. The fund's negotiations on those three major properties are well advanced. As to my hon. Friend's broader point, the fund's annual report states:
We have good reason for confidence not only in this Government's commitment to the objectives of conservation, but in their willingness to provide adequate funds to achieve those objectives.

Mr. Latham: Is one of those three officials responsible for monitoring section 16 of the National Heritage Act 1980? If so, will he sort out the nonsense that has arisen over the indemnity arrangements for the Kessler art exhibition?

Sir George Young: I have seen the letter which my hon. Friend wrote to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State on 2 July. I am sorry that the Tate gallery had apparently re-interpreted some rules which previously applied. We are in discussions with the Tate gallery, and I hope that the matter can be satisfactorily resolved.

Funding

Mr. Tony Lloyd: asked the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State answering in respect of the Arts if the Minister for the Arts has any plans to meet North-West Arts to discuss provision for the overall funding of the arts in the context of the Government's plans to abolish the metropolitan counties; and if he will make a statement.

Sir George Young: My noble Friend met the director of North-West Arts and the directors of a number of other regional arts associations on 7 June and had a very useful discussion on post-abolition funding for the arts.

Mr. Lloyd: Is the Minister aware that we in the north-west believe that the amount of centrally allocated money that will be made available should the metropolitan authorities be abolished is grossly inadequate? Does he also recognise that the Arts Council is not considered to be an unbiased allocator of funds, especially to areas such as the north-west? In those circumstances, will he use the same principles as were used in the Priestley report to guarantee that the funding announced by central Government will go to the northwest to ensure that the Royal Exchange, the Halle Orchestra and other such organisations of national importance receive the money that they need to allow them to continue?

Sir George Young: I am slightly surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman say that the Arts Council is biased in the regional distribution of funds, because this year's total allocation to North-West Arts represented a 17 per cent. increase on last year's grant. The Royal Exchange has received more funding from the Arts Council than has any other regional theatre. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I think that the Arts Council has discharged its obligation to the north-west as fairly as it can.

Mr. Jessel: May we have an assurance that the financial grants and targets will be adjusted to make it possible for Manchester and Liverpool — both great cities — to make some contribution to the arts, as they obviously wish to do?

Sir George Young: As my hon. Friend knows, my noble Friend was able to set aside £34 million in replacement of metropolitan county spending, of which £16 million went to the Arts Council, £1 million to the British Film Institute and £17 million to museums and galleries. The districts will be spared the task of having to raise the precept to hand on to the top tier authorities once they are abolished. That should give them the freedom to support worthwhile artistic institutions in their localities.

Mr. Jim Callaghan: In view of the Arts Council's estimate that if and when the GLC and the six metropolitan counties are abolished there will be a shortfall of £46 million, and since the Arts Council is to be funded to the tune of £16 million, may we have a categorical assurance that the shortfall to North-West Arts of £790,000 will be met in full?

Sir George Young: The Arts Council will be seeing my noble Friend shortly to discuss provisions for the 1986–87 budget, as is normal at this time of the year I am sure that that will be one of the matters that it will wish to raise with him.

Mr. Buchan: Is it not unfortunate that the Minister is deputy to a deputy? He might have been warned that in the last month there was a £30 mill ton shortfall below estimate for all the arts, including North-West Arts. Is it not a fact that no guarantee has been forthcoming for the north-west or for other areas? Next year there will be £30 million short for a start. Will the Government replace that money, or not?

Sir George Young: I must make it clear that the Government do not accept the Arts Council's estimate of the shortfall, which includes provision for some capital items which the GLC and the metropolitan counties have not provided, and a number of other items which fall more


appropriately to the district councils. I cannot accept the premise. Of course, my hon. friend the Member for Bristol, West would have answered the question better

than I, but at least my answers have been shorn of the Latin and Greek analogies, which I understand adorn his remarks.

Parliamentary Questions (Stratford-on-Avon)

Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Question No. 28 begins

Mr. Alan Howarth: "
The hon. Gentleman, who is a very admirable and likeable Member, has the privilege of representing myself, my wife, my daughter and my two grandsons and some dozen thousand others. He is wrong, or the Table Office is wrong, in giving to that historic and distinguished town the name of "Stratford-on-Avon". There is no such place. It is called "Stratford-upon-Avon".

Mr. Speaker: It is probably an abbreviation.

Mr. Alan Howarth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. This matter has been the subject of a long-running discussion over many years. Any hope of resolving the issue this afternoon requires more courage than the history of the controversy justifies.

Later—

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Continuing my campaign against the boundary commissioners, not against their chairman, I was most perturbed to hear that a mistake had been made in the name of Stratford-upon-Avon. Will you, as Chairman, keep an eye on the boundary commissioners as they are so daft that they will rename it at the drop of a hat?

Mr. Speaker: I, too, feel very strongly about constituency names. I shall keep a careful eye on the matter.

Secretary of State for Wales (Statement)

Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You were kind enough to listen to my point of order a week ago concerning the occasion when my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) asked the Prime Minister about the statement by the Secretary of State for Wales, in which he compared the opposition in the Brecon and Radnor by-election to a mixture of the Mafia and the mentally handicapped, on the ground that neither candidate was allowed out without a minder. The Prime Minister denied that her Secretary of State for Wales would make such a statement. You, Mr. Speaker, said that it was not a point of order. Is it now a point of order? Will you request the Prime Minister, who made a false declaration to the House of Commons, to apologise? We have received an apology from the Secretary of State, but I thought that I should raise the issue at Question Time so that the Secretary of State can apologise not only to the House and the nation but particularly to the people whom he tried to debase—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that I have got the drift. It was not a point of order for me when the hon. Gentleman first raised it and it is not a point of order for me now. I heard what the Secretary of State said and I hope that honour is now satisfied.

Later—

Mr. Ray Powell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your further advice and guidance. If you cannot make a ruling on the matter, although the Prime Minister deliberately misled the nation and the House, can the Leader of the House advise us when he will ask the Prime Minister to make a statement to the House on the issue that I have raised?

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the House is in the Chamber.

Arts Question Time

Mr. Clement Freud: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will accept that Question Time gives Members the opportunity to question a Minister who has specific responsibilities. You will also know that the subject of the arts is allocated 10 minutes every three weeks. I hope that you will make a ruling on this. As the Minister responsible is already far removed from us and has a junior Minister answering for him, what is the point in having questions answered by yet another Minister, even further removed from the relevant responsibility, as happened today?

Mr. Speaker: It is not a matter for me which Minister answers questions. That is clearly not one of my responsibilities.

Mr. Norman Buchan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We all recognise that this is not your direct responsibility, but you are the guardian of the interests of the House and especially of Back Benchers. For nearly two years we have suffered the disadvantage of having to deal with the deputy of a deputy. As the distinguished hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) put it, it is not even the organ grinder's monkey but the monkey's monkey. The deputy has been absent from the House in connection with a totally different matter. If we cannot have more than 10 minutes in three weeks, there should be some guarantee that the questions are answered by a Minister with some direct involvement in and responsibility for the arts. I accept the comment of the deputy's deputy that his answers were at least devoid of Latin tags, but the Latin tag was usually the best part of the answer. I hope that something can be said through you, Mr. Speaker, to the effect that safeguarding the interests of the house should have some precedence in the mind of the First Lord of the Treasury.

Mr. Speaker: So far as I am concerned, this House should always have priority. The Leader of the House is here. No doubt he has heard what has been said. I cannot pursue the matter further, as it is not my responsibility.

Board and Lodging Regulations

Mr. Roland Boyes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Is this a different point of order?

Mr. Boyes: It is a completely different point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Good.

Mr. Boyes: You and I share a common concern, Mr. Speaker, when Ministers make announcements to the press and not to Members of Parliament. This weekend the Minister for Social Security informed us through The Observer newspaper that Ernst and Whinney is to carry out an inquiry into provisions on residential care in relation to the new board and lodging regulations. I seek your advice on how best to go about getting the Minister into the Chamber to inform Members of Parliament of his intentions so that we can question him. More importantly, as the board and lodging regulations have been proved to be flawed, as shown by the fact that the Government have already had to change them, and as Ernst and Whinney was involved in determining the level of payment to youngsters, would not the Government do better to listen to what the Opposition have to say about the regulations so that we can help to get them correct? I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on how to get the Minister into the Chamber.

Mr. Speaker: It is true that the hon. Gentleman and I share a concern about these matters, but it is not a matter for me whether statements are made outside the House. The hon. Gentleman may have his opportunity during DHSS questions on 16 July.

Local Government Bill

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As a fellow keeper of law and order in debating chambers, may I crave your indulgence—especially as the Leader of the House is present—on an important matter relating to the business on which we are about to embark? Until Thursday, hon. Members were unaware of its timetabling, which has clearly left hon. Members on both sides of the House insufficient time to consider the reasoned amendments made by their Lordships in another place.
The complication arises because, I assume, it was organised some time ago that the Scottish Grand Committee should meet this morning at the Crown Office buildings in Regent road, Edinburgh. How is it possible for hon. Members in this Chamber so to delay the commencement of the next piece of business that it will allow a number of concerned Scottish Members to get back to the House to vote?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman shares with me an extremely difficult task, but I do not think that he would expect me to advise him on tactics, any more than he would advise his members in county hall on the tactics that they might use.

Local Government Bill (Allocation of Time)

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): I beg to move, That the Order of the House [11th February] be supplemented as follows:—

LORDS AMENDMENTS

1. — (1) The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall he completed at this day's sitting, Those Amendments shall be taken in the order shown in the Table set out below, and, subject to the provisions of the Order of 1lth February, each part of those proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of that Table.

Table


Lords Amendments
Time for conclusion


Nos. 1 to 3
6.00 p.m.


Nos. 4 to 8
7.45 p.m.


Nos. 9 to 12
8.45 p.m.


Nos. 13 to 42
9.15 p.m.


Nos. 43 to 47
10.00 p.m.


Nos. 48, 92 to 94, 49 to 91 and 95 to 98
Midnight

(2) Paragraph (1) of the Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings for two hours after Ten o'clock.

2. —(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above:—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion moved by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment, or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment, as amended;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege, and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or, as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;
(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;
(iii) put forthwith with respect to each Amendment designated by Mr. Speaker which has not been disposed of, the Question That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment; and
(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

(c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.

(2) Proceeding under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

Stages subsequent to firs, Consideration of Lords Amendments

3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of the proceedings.

4. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and


not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;
(ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and
(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Supplemental

5. — (1) In this paragraph 'the proceedings' means proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.

(2) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of the Message or, as the case may be, for the appointment and quorum of the Committee.

(3) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which they are appointed.

(4) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(5) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(6) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.

As last week, so today the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has made a great fuss about the fact that we are debating the Bill and that we intended to move this motion. I would have more sympathy if the GLC and the metropolitan counties had not obviously devoted all their energies between then and now to putting advertisements in the press rather than tabling amendments to the House, but that is exactly their priority, and it has been their priority throughout.

We shall be debating amendments that have come to this Chamber from another place. I am astonished that, if the issues are so serious, the Opposition actually want to spend time debating the timetable motion. I would have been quite happy to move the motion and take it on the nod so that we could get on to the substantive issues.

No one can now claim that the Bill has not had adequate time for debate. Despite the guillotine in this House, the time spent was over 200 hours. That was double the time spent on the 1963 London Government Bill, and nearly as much as on the 1972 Local Government Bill—almost twice the length of this Bill and covering the whole of England and Wales.

So it was also in another place. There was a long day's debate on Second reading, with a formidable list of speakers. There were 10 days of Committee stage discussion stretching late into the night on virtually every occasion. There were then six days on Report and a full day's debate on Third Reading—all in all, almost 120 hours of debate altogether in the other place. Lord Buckmaster calculated that that amounted to over a million words.

The principles of the Bill have been widely supported in both Houses of Parliament. The Bill received a Second Reading in this House by a majority of 135 and a Third Reading by a majority of 155. In another place the reasoned amendment moved on Second Reading was rejected by a majority of 126—a majority of more than two to one in the Government's favour. On some issues, notably the so-called "Voice for London" issue, the votes in another place came a trifle closer — that I shall concede—but always the proposal was rejected. I might remind the House that when that issue was debated on Report in this House the proposal was rejected by 335 votes to 193—a majority of 142.

The other place has returned the Bill to us with 98 amendments—far fewer than the 280 Lords amendments on the London Government Bill. Of these 98, 76 are straightforward and the Government will invite the House to accept them as they stand or with minor drafting changes. Worthy of note are the amendments which provide for a committee of councillors from the London boroughs to consider planning issues in place of the London Planning Commission originally proposed in the Bill, the amendment calling for a report on countryside matters, the amendment deleting the order-making power to break up the Inner London Education Authority, and the amendments providing for the continuity of a number of specialist services.

The two issues of substance on which the Government will invite the House to take a different view from their Lordships concern highways and road traffic and waste disposal.

There is plenty of time to debate those issues. Although I recognise that the Opposition and some of my hon. Friends want to add to or amend some of the Lords amendments, as far as I can see they all concern issues which have already been argued fully in this House and in another place at earlier stages of the Bill. Although it is perfectly right to return to those matters now, we consider that the proposed time is reasonable.

I understand that the Opposition will oppose the timetable motion. Are they really saying that the whole day, extending, as the motion provides, until midnight, is too little time to debate these issues fully? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Opposition Members have had but one tactic throughout this legislation — to delay it just as long as they can. They failed to win the case on its merits. They had hoped to emasculate the Bill in another place, but they failed there too. It is now right and proper that we bring debate on the Bill to a conclusion and get on with the job. That is the purpose of this motion, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Speaker: The Question is, The Local Government Bill allocation of time motion. Mr. Tony Banks.

Mr. Jack Straw: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) wish to speak first?

Mr. Straw: Yes. I defer, as always, to the chairman of the Greater London council, but I hope that he will not mind, if, this time, I speak before him, with, of course, his permission.
My good and hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) is unavoidably absent today. Nothing would have given him greater pleasure than to be here to lead the fight.
We oppose the motion because it is constitutionally unacceptable that seven major debates on issues central to the operation of the Bill should be crammed into no more than six hours of debate today. For the Government to suggest that we should not have taken the one hour to discuss general principles is verging on the hypocritical because, had they thought that the principles were important enough to be discussed, they could have allowed more time.
The Bill would implement the Conservative party's manifesto commitment of June 1983, which said:
The Metropolitan Councils and the Greater London Council have been shown to be a wasteful and unnecessary tier of government. We shall abolish them and return most of their functions to the boroughs and the districts.
The White Paper — the so-called "Streamlining the Cities" White Paper — tried to expand on those aims. We were told that the Bill would do three things: transfer most functions to the lower tier, remove an unnecessary tier of government and achieve major savings. The electorate was told before June 1983 that £120 million would be saved.
Another reason why we need much more time to debate the Bill is that, even if it is passed in its present form, it will be a failure when set against the aims which the Government have set for it. The Secretary of State said the Bill had not been emasculated. He has obviously not read or listened to what happened to the Bill in this House and in the other place. It does not transfer most functions to lower-tier authorities. Of 42 major functions currently operated by the GLC or the metropolitan counties, 32, that is 75 per cent., are to be transferred wholly or substantially to countywide bodies, including fire, police, almost certainly waste disposal, passenger transport, financial services and waste management. In case the Secretary of State has missed this, since the White Paper, thanks to the effectiveness of the opposition in this House and outside, 25 functions have been substantially altered to provide now for countywide control.
Secondly, this measure does not remove an unnecessary tier of government. Indeed, progress on the Bill has confirmed the unavoidable need for countywide services, but what the Bill has removed is democratically elected control of those countywide services. If anybody denies that, let the Secretary of State contradict the figures which show that in the Greater London area 60 per cent. of the spending will still be undertaken by countywide bodies. In the metropolitan areas, it will be 90 per cent. of spending.
Thirdly, this measure will not produce the savings which were so wildly claimed for it at the general election. That claim of £120 million is in today's prices worth £140 million. It was scaled down in the explanatory memorandum to the Bill when it was first published at the end of last November, and it is an issue on which Ministers are coy, to say the least. We have had a succession of Ministers from other Departments, such as the Minister of State, Department of Transport, saying, "Wherever that £100 million is coming from, it is not coming from passenger transport." The Minister of State, Home Office

is saying, "Wherever that £100 million is coming from., it is not coming from the fire service or the police or from civil defence."
In the Secretary of State's speech, not a word was said about the great claim that this measure would save £120 million. The Public Accounts Committee will find him out after others have seen to his demise from his present high office. However much creative accounting it goes in for, the Public Accounts Committee will find that this measure will not save money, but will increase costs. The Coopers and Lybrand studies, which the Minister has never sought to contradict, show that for marginal recurrent savings there had to be set against one-off savings of between £272 million and £407 million.
Another reason why we need more time to debate this measure is that it will in no way streamline the cities, because in the place of seven great authorities there will be 62 quangos, joint boards and joint committees and five Government Departments with enhanced powers. Did any Conservative Members in supporting the manifestos in 1979 and 1983, take account of the fact that it would be a matter of voting for more quangos, more joint boards and more centralised control? That will be the result of the Bill.
The Bill has never been anything more than an unprincipled, spiteful and vindictive attack on seven great local authorities for no reason other than that they are Labour. Many Ministers, including the Minister of State, have had to eat their hats, and to eat their former words in support of the GLC and the metropolitan counties.
Will the Secretary of State seek the Prime Minister's approval to release the letter which the Prime Minister sent after the Marshall inquiry to Mr. Cutler when he was leader of the Greater London council? We have not heard of that letter before, I understand on the very best of authority that after the Marshall inquiry Mr. Cutler wrote to the Prime Minister who was then Leader of the Opposition, asking her whether she wanted a further statutory inquiry. As I understand it, the right hon. Lady replied that she did not wish for a further statutory inquiry into the GLC, but wished to see the GLC preserved and said that the GLC was
the jewel in the crown of Conservative local government.

Mr. Richard Tracey: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that if his party were ever returned to government it would not bring back the GLC and the metropolitan counties in their present form? I emphasise "in their present form".

Mr. Straw: We should bring back a strategic authority for London in a better form. I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has today released a letter which contains a categorical assurance that we shall reinstate democratic and directly elected control of countrywide services in every area to which the Bill applies.
We should be grateful for the fact that in piloting the measure through the House the Secretary of State has greatly contributed to the decline in the Government's popular support. There is no doubt that the Government forced this measure into their manifesto because they thought that it would increase their popularity, but, thanks to the opposition in the House and outside, it is one of the main reasons why the Government suffered a humiliating defeat last week and why they will suffer further such humiliating defeats next May in the local elections.
The Secretary of State claims to have won a series of votes. We are aware of the supine nature of the Government's supporters. We are aware that we may lose votes today, but we fight to win. Whatever votes we may lose, the Labour party has overwhelmingly won the arguments about this mean and nasty Bill, which will result in worse services, staff uncertainty, administrative chaos and increased costs for ratepayers and taxpayers. Above all, the Bill reduces the rights of 13 million electors to have a proper say about the services which directly affect them.
We shall fight the measure now. We shall continue to fight it in the future. At the next election, we shall be pledged to its repeal. Not least because of that pledge to repeal, when we are elected to power in 1987, we shall make the repeal of this measure one of the next Labour Government's first acts.

Mr. Charles Morrison: During the debates on the Bill I have often found myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), but not today. I strongly support the timetable motion, in general, because I believe that Bills should be timetabled — a good Bill should not need 170 hours of debate—but in particular, because the sooner we get rid of this unfortunate Bill, this embarrassment for the Government, the sooner it is out of the way, the sooner will most people forget it and the better therefore will be the future chance of a Conservative Government.
I am one of that band, which has been small up to now, of Conservative Members who consistently over the past year or two have done their best to persuade the Government to desist from flinging down banana skins upon which they then slip. Unfortunately, the failure of my powers of persuasion were demonstrated with painful clarity by last Thursday's events. In future, I shall have to try harder and, I hope, with more support from my hon. Friends.
I should not be arguing for a quick end to the debate if there were a snowball's chance in hell of the Government listening to what was said, but with a severe attack of political deafness and a majority as large as it is, mere words are useless. I should argue differently if the majority were a more normal 40 or 50. If it had been, I doubt whether we would ever have had the Bill. Even if we had, such a majority would have ensured that we could have knocked more sense into the Bill.
I had high hopes of the other place. It has improved the Bill, and my hopes were raised when I saw it reported that my noble Friend Lord Whitelaw was against it. With his great political experience, that was not the least surprising. Sadly, however, even he and his colleagues were mostly, with honourable and noble exceptions, in the end whipped into line. The sooner we are done with this Bill the better. But though it may be forgotten by the majority, its ill effect will live with all those who live in London and the metropolitan counties. In the metropolitan areas a mass of districts, mostly controlled by the Left of the Labour party, will replace a mere six Labour metropolitan councils. That is hardly a good Conservative recipe for administration.
In London, the powers of the GLC will be administered partly by the London boroughs, mostly controlled by Labour, partly by an elected ILEA, but sure always to be

controlled by Labour, partly by a residuary body, which has the benefit of an excellent chairman, and partly, and increasingly in my judgment, by Whitehall, as will become steadily clearer. The change-over will be chaotic and the cost very high. That will hardly please the electorate, nor will it uphold the old classical Tory belief in the maximum distribution of power. I trust that a general election will come before the chaos becomes too obvious. All this is to satisfy a sudden and ill-thought-out whim. It is a strange world in which we live, but it is time that a little more common sense was introduced into it.

4 pm

Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) is clearly the voice of reason within the Conservative party. It is an echo that we have heard gathering strength throughout the passage of the Bill but it has still not convinced the Conservative Front Bench, particularly the person who inhabits No. 10 Downing Street. The hon. Gentleman has expressed fears that are clearly held by many reasonable Conservative Members.
The Government's guillotining of this latest stage of the Bill is entirely consistent with their tactics, which have been shoddy in the extreme throughout its passage through both Houses. We have been told that the Bill was conceived in haste and in malice by the Prime Minister. It has been nurtured on the lies propagated by the Daily Mail, The Sun, and the Daily Express and it has been dragooned through Parliament by a bunch of placemen prostituting what is left of their political principles. From that, I exonerate both the Secretary of State and the Minister for Local Government who clearly revealed that they had no political principles to start with.
We have been told by the Secretary of State that we have had many hours of debate on the Bill. Indeed, we have, but most of it has been sustained by the Opposition during the Committee stage. When we reach the later amendments we shall no doubt have a repeat of what we have seen before. The Conservative Benches will be completely denuded of Members, save the few miserable rejects on the Government Front Bench and some of their Parliamentary Private Secretaries who are forced to sit behind them and appear loyal. The rest will disappear because Tories are embarrassed by what their Government are doing.
The Government have used secrecy, deceit and plain dishonesty in their efforts to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan county councils.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Conservative Members are asleep.

Mr. Banks: I do not believe that they are asleep. I believe that it is a new thing called "political osmosis". They hope to get some sense through the green leather of the Benches on which their heads rest. There is no credible support for the Bill. Ninety amendments were made in another place and major principles were established and changed, yet we are to have only about six hours' debate.

Mr. Harry Cowans: I apologise for intervening in my hon. Friend's speech, but had the Secretary of State not been windy I would have said the same to him. Does my hon. Friend realise that those amendments were made at 11.30 pm last Wednesday in the other place, yet here we are on Monday, less than 48


sitting hours later, talking about those very amendments? Not only is the Bill being subjected to the guillotine, but it is being pushed through the House at the speed of light, which is a gross misuse of parliamentary privilege.

Mr. Banks: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, but I believe that the hon. Member for Devizes got it right. The Government are severely embarrassed by the Bill. They want to try to rush it out as fast as they can. The hon. Member for Devizes was quite wrong to expect that, merely because the Bill is likely to be passed, somehow the electorate will forget about it. I remind him that the GLC and the metropolitan county councils will still exist until 31 March and no one believes that the GLC, of all bodies, will allow the London electorate to forget about this particular legislation.
I was on the point of reminding the House that "Streamlining the Cities" received about 5,000 responses, the overwhelming majority of which were implacably opposed to the Government's proposals. The Government cannot and have never been able to cite one independent, authoritative academic or professional body in support of abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils. The Prime Minister's determination, which in certain respects, from a political point of view, can be considered to be admirable, has turned into sheer boneheadedness. She has permitted her judgment to be dominated by her political vindictiveness towards the GLC, and not one of the bunch of gutless ministerial nonentities who surround her has the courage to tell her the truth. She is taking her party towards political annihilation in London, and local government towards chaos throughout the country. There is overwhelming opposition to the Bill among the electorate as council by-elections and opinion polls clearly show.
The Tory party in London is now too frightened to fight elections. Of the four GLC by-elections called since May this year, the Tories have decided to fight only one, at Romford. That shows that no political principle can be involved. That by-election will be contested on Thursday and the Tories will lose it because of the Bill.

Mr. Bill Michie: I can see why the Government are worried about elections and why they want to abolish the ballot box. Despite what goes out in the media, the Tories lost two of the safest seats in Sheffield in last Thursday's by-election. Are the Government to start abolishing district council elections as well?

Mr. Banks: I do not know whether they are about to abolish district council elections, but given their authoritarian nature it would not surprise me. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) is quite correct. The real impact of this Bill will be seen in the borough council elections in London and the district council elections in May 1986. From a Labour point of view, we expect to make a clean sweep throughout London. Westminster city council will go Labour in 1986 because of the Bill and the Government will be surrounded by their political enemies. Such thoughts comfort me at times like this.
Whatever happens to the Bill, there will be no comfort for the Government. They have never made anything other than the most generalised statements about their overall objectives. They have talked about massive savings as the reason for abolition, but those savings have never been

quantified in any detail. The Government claim that £50 million a year will be saved by the abolition of the GLC, offset by £20 million in the first year because of transitional costs. We have never been given a breakdown of these figures despite repeated requests, and one or two parliamentary questions by myself.
Coopers and Lybrand estimate that the transitional costs resulting from abolition will total between £122 million and £167 million. Early-day motion 795, tabled in the names of a number of Conservative Members, draws the Government's attention to the estimate. I should like to know whether Ministers have asked their civil servants to look at the figures produced by Coopers and Lybrand to see whether they can fill any gaps in their woeful lack of information. The Government's £50 million a year estimate is considered by Coopers and Lybrand to be a substantial over-estimate because it takes no account of the increased costs of debt financing. These figures cannot be verified.
Policy changes, as Alan Greengross, the leader of the Conservative party at County hall has pointed out, could produce for the Government far more savings than they could ever get through abolition, but policy changes would mean that the Tory party would have to go out and win an election at the ballot box. That they have refused to do, and they have abolished the county level ballot box in London.

Mr. Terry Dicks: The hon. Gentleman is concerned about depriving Londoners of the democratic right to vote, but will he explain how many seats will be contested next year in the borough elections? Is that not an opportunity for Londoners to exercise their democratic rights?

Mr. Banks: Yes, and Londoners will take it, and they will sweep the Tories out of London. However, we are talking about county level elections, which have effectively been abolished in London, but which will be maintained in the shire elections. I cannot see what principle the hon. Gentleman as trying to prove.
The Government have claimed that the GLC services will be transferred to the boroughs and a so-called unnecessary tier of local government will be removed. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has confirmed, it is not the GLC and the metropolitan council services that are to be abolished but rather democratic control over those who administer most of those services. He went on to show the number of functions that would be transferred wholly or substantially to countywide bodies.
Far from streamlining local government, Ministers are introducing proposals that will lead to about 195 successor bodies and authorities taking on GLC and metropolitan county council activities after abolition. If the Secretary of State believes that that is streamlining, it is clear that he would make an even worse job of design engineering than of local government.

Dr. Keith Hampson: Has the hon. Gentleman forgotten that four key metropolitan county councils, the Labour parties in those districts and the GLC leader in London have called for the abolition of these authorities, and that it has taken the Leader of the Opposition since April, when he was asked by the leader


of the West Yorkshire county council whether he would restore the metropolitan county councils, to come up with a fudged compromise?

Mr. Banks: I have sat through every debate on this Bill, here and in Committee. I have heard our Front Bench clearly make statements that the GLC will be restored and that the next Labour Government will have to look at the whole structure of local government in the metropolitan areas. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that we are going to respond in the same knee-jerk way as the Prime Minister reacted when she read some of the bad publicity that the GLC was getting and said, "We will abolish it, off with its head", he does not understand the way that the Labour party works. We shall make sure that local government is put on a firm and sound footing, and that will involve us approaching the matter properly and democratically and not in the haphazard and undemocratic way of the Conservative party.
The electorate knows that this Bill is nonsense. It started off as a botched-up exercise in political vindictiveness and has now become the most absurd legislative proposal since the window tax. Everybody knows that the Bill will not work. We all know that it is nonsense, and yet it still limps towards the statute book. It does so simply because it is now all about the Prime Minister's face — the most expensive commodity in British politics today. That face sinks ships in the south Atlantic, wages war on trade unionists and the unemployed and undermines the economy. It is now set, against all reason, natural justice and the facts, to abolish the GLC and the MCCs.
The Bill is immoral and unworkable. It seeks to use parliamentary sovereignty to destroy an important part of local democracy and, by doing so, it brings both the law and the House into disrepute. In my first speech in this House I said that the abolition of the GLC would eventually destroy the Government. I see no reason to change that prediction. The coming Labour Government, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has made clear, will have to reorganise local government in London. At County hall, we are already working on a new, super and improved GLC, for the years to come. It will be larger and more powerful, and it will undoubtedly involve the abolition of the City of London. Perhaps, using some of the precedents established in the Bill, we shall abolish the City of London by Order in Council. We shall cite certain things that the Government have attempted to do with ILEA.
Politics is a funny business. It appears from the way that selections for parliamentary candidates in my party are going that half the current Labour group from County hall will be here to see the new, super, improved GLC being created, and I look forward to that.
In the meantime, abolition of the GLC will not end as an issue, even after the Royal Assent has been given. As chairman of the GLC, I give an unyielding promise to the Government that no political goodwill will be forthcoming from County hall between now and 31 March 1986. We shall do all that is necessary to protect jobs and services in London.
The Bill has become a spectacular embarrassment for the Government that even now most of them regret. It is no wonder that the Government wish to force the Bill

through tonight by using the guillotine. The destruction of this particularly loathsome Government is all the consolation that I need if the GLC is to be abolished. The Bill will achieve that destruction.

Mr. Tony Marlow: We have just heard a turkey voting against Christmas.
One of the reassuring things about the Bill is that authoritarians in the Labour party say that it will lead to a reduction in democracy, but Mr. Ted Knight, the leader of Lambeth council, when he was defeated last week on a vote about rates, said that it did not make any difference and that he would continue his policies. He spat in the face of democracy, and that is what authoritarians in the Labour party always do.
One thing that the Bill will do—

Mr. Charles Morrison: rose—

Mr. Marlow: I shall not give way.
One thing that the Bill will do — this is not its purpose, but a by-product of it — is to rid London of Ken Livingstone as leader of the GLC. That is ridding us of somebody who has done for local democracy what Josef Mengele has done for medicine—perverted his art with brutal and idiosyncratic practices—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Only one hon. Member should be on his feet at a time. Is the hon. Gentleman giving way?

Mr. Marlow: Not at the moment, Mr. Speaker, but I shall give way later.

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the general guffawing that usually surrounds the speeches of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), perhaps hon. Members missed the fact that he compared Ken Livingstone with the mass murderer of Jews in concentration camps. Is that not exceeding the normal bounds of decent debate?.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Every hon. Member must take responsibility for his speech.

Mr. Marlow: I have no intention whatever of withdrawing my remark, because of the way that I made it. We all know that Ken Livingstone is not a mass murderer, and that is not the point that I was making. I was making the point that he perverted the trust that was put in him in terms of local government, and he perverted that art through idiosyncratic and brutal experimentation against the people of London. Not only that, but he abused his trust by using vast amounts of ratepayers' money for publicity and propaganda that has fuelled the interests of the Labour party. This a disgrace, and the sooner the Widdicombe report comes out and does something about it the better.

Mr. Charles Morrison: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's remarks about Mr. Ted Knight, but how will the Bill improve the position if it is to give more power to Mr. Ted Knight?

Mr. Marlow: We shall have to see what happens to Mr. Ted Knight in the fullness of time and what the ballot box says about him. My hon. Friend will then see that true democracy works. My hon. Friend views the Bill in a different way from me. He is in a small minority in the Conservative party. The reason why I am making these points is that the vast majority of Conservative Members


are whole-heartedly behind this measure. It brings democracy closer to the people and gives more control over what is happening to local people. That is why I support the motion.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I can follow neither the extremism nor the bombast of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). He is no doubt aggrieved that his rates in Lambeth are going down, and he will no doubt exercise his single ballot box vote there next year.
We have seven hours and twenty minutes in which to discuss the 98 amendments which were made by the other place. This is the exercise of the Government's use of the parliamentary chopper. Their first exercise of the chopper was to provide no debate within the Conservative party. They chopped any debate within the Cabinet. The Prime Minister decided to include this proposal in the general election manifesto. The second exercise of the electoral chopper was to chop any opportunity to hold a public inquiry and take expert evidence, as has always happened in the past when local government has been reformed. The Government have chopped any opportunity to listen to those who might know a little more about the working of local government than either the Secretary of State or his colleagues who have been given charge of the Bill.
The Government's third exercise of the parliamentary chopper was to chop the 1985 elections in London and in the six metropolitan counties of Britain. The Tories did not do all that well in the elections on their own ground, namely, the shire counties, let alone in the elections that might have taken place in the urban areas of Great Britain. Their fourth exercise of the parliamentary chopper was to chop the elected government of our capital city after a history that goes back 100 years. They have chopped regional government, municipal government and strategic government for the majority of citizens who live in the urban counties. Another exercise of the chopper is to guillotine this debate.
The history of the reaction to these proposals suggests that there is a bigger chop yet to come. The Government included this promise in their general election manifesto of 1983. Their vote went down. At the beginning of the general election campaign 44 per cent. of the population supported the Government, but three weeks later only 42 per cent. supported them. The shire county elections in England and Wales took place earlier this year. Throughout their history the Conservative party has been in control of the majority of the shire counties. It also controlled the Association of County Councils. The result of the Government's policies emanating from the Department of the Environment, their policies relating to local government and local government finance and their policy to make the people out there pay for what the Government are doing here means that they have lost control of the majority of shire counties in England. Their vote has gone down. For the first time ever they have lost control of the Association of County Councils.
What has happened when Members of Parliament have been elected? There have been a few by-elections since the Government first came to office. Only two seats have changed hands in by-elections. They were Tory seats. The Government had a majority of over 12,000 in Portsmouth, but they lost that by-election. That failure was also connected with their local government policies. In Brecon

and Radnor the Government had a majority of over 8,000, but they lost that by-election, too. It will not have escaped the attention of the House that the Government lost those by-elections, not to the Labour party, but to the alliance. The message from the electorate of Brecon and Radnor and everywhere else is that because the Government do not respect local government, or local services, or the views of local people, they will be up for the chop at the end of this Parliament. That will be the result of the folly of their policies.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why, since the Conservative party lost control of the Association of County Councils, it has managed to take the majority of the chairmanships, with the support of the Liberals?

Mr. Hughes: The reason is that the Labour party is incompetent at organising itself and the Association of County Councils is unused to holding the balance of power. It was only under pressure from the alliance that it nominated a member of the Labour party to chair the Burnham committee to look after education, because of the protests of the Labour party.

Mr. Roberts: Will the hon. Gentleman give way again?

Mr. Hughes: No, I shall not give way again. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to make his speech.
The result of this policy is that, contrary to all their protests and to what was said by the Secretary of State's predecessor, who is now the Secretary of State for Education and Science, the Government are giving more power to the Secretary of State and his successors, to quangos and to nominated or indirectly elected bodies. They are all equally inappropriate and inadequate substitutes for local government. We have watched the flight of confidence as people have been driven from their jobs, not only in county hall, but in the metropolitan county councils.
Crucial matters are to be debated today. However, they reflect only bits of policy, because the Government's policy was formed on the run and has not been thought out properly. All those who served on the Committee know that the Government had no answer to the question about who supported their proposals. They did not even have an answer, for half of the time, about their proposals. The bits of the Bill which were amended by the other place deal with strategic planning — hardly something which the Government presume can be carried out by borough or district councils. Highways and traffic management do not stop at borough boundaries and suddenly become somebody else's responsibility at a handover point, as happens when one crosses the Channel. It is ludicrous that these matters are not to be dealt with by countywide authorities.
The Government had no policy on waste disposal when the Bill was previously considered in this House. Waste disposal may not be one of the most exciting parts of the Bill, but if waste disposal goes wrong it will be an important matter for those who are concerned about the environment and who will have to cope with waste and rubbish in their cities and urban areas.
As for the Government's education proposals, it has been said for decades that education in London is better looked after by a cross-borough authority. The


Government, it is said, ought therefore to have left it alone. Instead, they are not allowing county education structures to remain in place. The details and the principles need to be considered fully, not in a rushed debate. That is what the guillotine will imply.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I take on board entirely and agree with the point made by the hon. Gentleman. His argument about waste disposal applies precisely to Merseyside, as it does to many of these other services. However, can the hon. Gentleman say what advice he would give to the electors of Liverpool, Mossley Hill? I understand that his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) has consistently supported the abolition of the metropolitan counties, against the interests of the people of Merseyside. Is not the only way to deal with the matter in Mossley Hill at the next general election to vote for the Labour candidate?

Mr. Hughes: I shall deal in a moment with that matter and all that goes with it, as well as with the statement this morning by the Leader of the Opposition. I repeat what the Government ought to bear in mind. At the beginning of the debate on the Bill the alliance made its view clear. —[Laughter.] It is no use the Labour party laughing, because it still does not have a clear policy.
Our position has been made clear for decades. London should again have — whatever the Government do— a regional authority. The rest of England should have regional authorities. The Labour party is still — it is entitled to take its time — sorting out whether it will replace county authorities with metropolitan authorities, whether it will have only district authorities, or whether it will have a combination of the two. However, we repeat what we said at the beginning, that the only satisfactory answer is to give London and the other areas proper regional government. Under that form of government regional functions such as transport, planning and waste disposal, which should have been provided many years ago, will be carried out.

Dr. Hampson: Can the House determine from that statement that the official view of the Liberal and Social Democratic parties is that the metropolitan counties should be abolished?

Mr. Hughes: We have always believed that the metropolitan counties should be replaced by regional government. We opposed the setting up of the metropolitan counties, and we have never liked them. [Interruption.] It will be done by regional government, with many of the powers which Whitehall and this Secretary of State and his successors will inherit. Perhaps the Government should have paid more heed to that message at the beginning.
I end with these two notes of warning to the Labour party and its policy makers and to the Government. They should notice that since 1982 the alliance, and not the Labour party, has done best in local elections in London — [HON. MEMBERS: "Not in London."] It is true. Labour Members may try to prove me wrong but they will not succeed. We have done better in London in local elections. We have been consistent in our policies and arguments on the issue. I hope that, one day, the Labour party will have a consistent approach and policy. Labour

Members will not be the victims of what is primarily a Government folly. The Government intend passing powers to a residuary body. As a body, the Government were withering when the Bill was introduced. They will be the residuary body at the end of this exercise, and they will have only themselves to blame.

Mr. Richard Tracey: I wonder whether any hon. Member or any person outside who hears this debate will be able to consider this as a serious debate. I suspect that this is the type of debate that brings the House into some disrepute. There is no doubt that the people know full well that the Government, who were elected with an overwhelming majority in 1983, had a policy to abolish the Greater London council and the metropolitan counties. In June 1983 a poll conducted by National Opinion Polls clearly showed that the public had little idea what the GLC did and saw no reason why it might not just as well be abolished. In the general election which followed soon after that poll the Conservatives won 56 of the 84 London seats that were up for election. If that did not represent an overwhelming majority vote for the Conservative party's policies, I should like to know what did.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Tracey: No doubt the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to speak in the debate.
Various politicians in the metropolitan counties have told us of their wish to abolish the metropolitan councils because they see no purpose in them. They believe that it is far better for democratic practices to be returned to the district councils, which have many more elected members representing a much smaller proportion of the population. The same applies in Greater London. I am sure that, once the people realise that their interests are represented by many more councillors, it will be an irrelevance to have a Greater London council.
Since the general election, £12 million has been spent by the GLC in an attempted brainwashing exercise. Almost £1 million has been spent by the metropolitan counties in doing the same thing. The latest intervention is a letter from the Leader of the Opposition which, we have been told, took him six months to write — no doubt, there was a lot of rewriting. We have been told that the Labour party is not committed to restoring the GLC and the metropolitan councils in their present form. This was confirmed by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), speaking from the Front Bench, in reply to my intervention. The Opposition are committed to restoring what they call a strategic, democratically elected voice. That is a very different thing.

Mr. Nellist: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Tracey: The hon. Gentleman will have his opportunity to speak.
I ask the hon. Member for Blackburn and his Front Bench colleagues whether they believe that the district councils and the London borough councils are democratically elected bodies. If they are not, what are they? The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues know only too well that there are members of the Labour party in senior positions who share the view that the metropolitan councils and the GLC are superfluous and an irrelevance.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Tracey: I shall give way to the chairman of the GLC.

Mr. Banks: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to the right hon. chairman of the GLC. Will he reflect on this point? Of course the impending Labour Government will not bring back the GLC as currently established, because it has lost transport, housing, ambulance services and water and sewage services. It would be pointless bringing back the GLC as it is now. We want to bring it back with all those services added to it.

Mr. Tracey: I am sure that the House and the world outside will find it instructive to hear the right hon. chairman of the GLC make such a partisan statement. It is rather like you, Mr. Speaker, making a speech in a partisan way for, or against, the existence of the other place. I am sure that you would not do that—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Do not bring me into it, please.

Mr. Tracey: Willingly, Sir.

Mr. Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the case that whoever sits in your seat would be expected to support the concept of an elected democracy?

Mr. Speaker: That is a difficult question. I do not give my reasons.

Mr. Tracey: If a great mind like yours, Mr. Speaker, will not answer that intervention, I certainly will not try.
I remind the Opposition, who are spending so much time arguing against the Government delivering their manifesto commitments, of two statements. On 23 September 1983 the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), writing in his local newspaper, the Sutton Coldfield News, stated:
I do not intend to lift one legislative finger to stop the return of single tier government to Birmingham. That was the view of all the city councillors and it was clearly the view of all West Midlands MPs before the Election.
He was referring, of course, to the 1983 general election.
Then very recently, in April 1985, Mr. Ken Livingstone, the leader of the Greater London council, wrote to the chairmen of his committees:
We have never defended the GLC status quo and have always argued for an extension and development of our powers.
I realise that from the Labour party there is indeed a view that it wishes to go further and that it wants, of course, to abolish the shire county councils, but what we are asking for is that the Government's commitment in the manifesto should be delivered now without further ado to the population, and there should be no further talk about this matter. We should proceed to legislate.

Mr. Chris Smith: I wish to make one brief point which I think goes to the kernel of the argument about the motion.
The kernel of the Bill is the removal from direct democracy of a whole range of powers which at present exist in the metropolitan counties and the Greater London council. If the House is to mean anything, it must be the watchdog of democracy against the dictatorship of the Executive. The Executive in the form of the Government are bringing forward the Bill to remove democracy from the hands of many of my constituents and many others throughout the country. It therefore behoves us—

It being one hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. SPEAKER put the Question pursuant to the order of the House of 11 February.

The House divided: Ayes 285, Noes 166.

Division No. 255]
[4.41 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Evennett, David


Aitken, Jonathan
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Alexander, Richard
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Amess, David
Fallon, Michael


Ancram, Michael
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Ashby, David
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Aspinwall, Jack
Fletcher, Alexander


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Forman, Nigel


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Forth, Eric


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Fox, Marcus


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Franks, Cecil


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Batiste, Spencer
Freeman, Roger


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fry, Peter


Bellingham, Henry
Gale, Roger


Bendall, Vivian
Galley, Roy


Bennett, Rt Hon Sir Frederic
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Benyon, William
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Best, Keith
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bevan, David Gilroy
Glyn, Dr Alan


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Goodlad, Alastair


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Gorst, John


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Gow, Ian


Body, Richard
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Grant, Sir Anthony


Bottomley, Peter
Greenway, Harry


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Gregory, Conal


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Griffiths, Sir Eldon


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Grist, Ian


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Bright, Graham
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brinton, Tim
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Hanley, Jeremy


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hannam, John


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Browne, John
Harris, David


Bruinvels, Peter
Haselhurst, Alan


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Buck, Sir Antony
Hawksley, Warren


Burt, Alistair
Hayes, J.


Butcher, John
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney


Butler, Hon Adam
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Butterfill, John
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hickmet, Richard


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Cash, William
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Chapman, Sydney
Hordern, Sir Peter


Chope, Christopher
Howard, Michael


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Clegg, Sir Walter
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Colvin, Michael
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Coombs, Simon
Hunter, Andrew


Cope, John
Irving, Charles


Couchman, James
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Cranborne, Viscount
Jessel, Toby


Crouch, David
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dicks, Terry
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Dorrell, Stephen
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Dover, Den
Key, Robert


Dunn, Robert
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Durant, Tony
King, Rt Hon Tom


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Eggar, Tim
Knowles, Michael


Emery, Sir Peter
Lamont, Norman






Latham, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lawler, Geoffrey
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lee, John (Pendle)
Rost, Peter


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Rowe, Andrew


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Ryder, Richard


Lightbown, David
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lilley, Peter
Scott, Nicholas


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lord, Michael
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Luce, Richard
Shersby, Michael


McCrindle, Robert
Silvester, Fred


Macfarlane, Neil
Sims, Roger


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Skeet, T. H. H.


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Madel, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Major, John
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Malins, Humfrey
Speed, Keith


Maples, John
Speller, Tony


Marland, Paul
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Marlow, Antony
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Squire, Robin


Maude, Hon Francis
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stanley, John


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Steen, Anthony


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Stern, Michael


Mellor, David
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Merchant, Piers
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Stokes, John


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Sumberg, David


Moate, Roger
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Moore, John
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Terlezki, Stefan


Moynihan, Hon C.
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Mudd, David
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Murphy, Christopher
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Neale, Gerrard
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Needham, Richard
Thurnham, Peter


Nelson, Anthony
Tracey, Richard


Neubert, Michael
Trippier, David


Newton, Tony
Trotter, Neville


Nicholls, Patrick
Twinn, Dr Ian


Norris, Steven
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Onslow, Cranley
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Osborn, Sir John
Viggers, Peter


Ottaway, Richard
Waddington, David


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Walden, George


Parris, Matthew
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abdgn)
Wall, Sir Patrick


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Waller, Gary


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Walters, Dennis


Portillo, Michael
Ward, John


Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Powell, William (Corby)
Watson, John


Powley, John
Watts, John


Price, Sir David
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Prior, Rt Hon James
Wheeler, John


Proctor, K. Harvey
Whitney, Raymond


Raffan, Keith
Wiggin, Jerry


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Wolfson, Mark


Rathbone, Tim
Wood, Timothy


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Woodcock, Michael


Renton, Tim
Yeo, Tim


Rhodes James, Robert
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon



Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rifkind, Malcolm
Mr. Carol Mather and


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Mr. Robert Boscawen.


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)



NOES


Alton, David
Barnett, Guy


Ashton, Joe
Barron, Kevin


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Beckett, Mrs Margaret


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Beith, A. J.


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Bell, Stuart





Benn, Tony
Leighton, Ronald


Bermingham, Gerald
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Bidwell, Sydney
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Blair, Anthony
Litherland, Robert


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Boyes, Roland
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Bray, Dr Jeremy
McCartney, Hugh


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
McKelvey, William


Bruce, Malcolm
Maclennan, Robert


Caborn, Richard
McNamara, Kevin


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
McTaggart, Robert


Carter-Jones, Lewis
McWilliam, John


Cartwright, John
Madden, Max


Clarke, Thomas
Marek, Dr John


Clay, Robert
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Cohen, Harry
Meacher, Michael


Coleman, Donald
Meadowcroft, Michael


Conlan, Bernard
Michie, William


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Corbett, Robin
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Nellist, David


Cowans, Harry
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
O'Brien, William


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Park, George


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Parry, Robert


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Patchett, Terry


Deakins, Eric
Pavitt, Laurie


Dixon, Donald
Pendry, Tom


Dobson, Frank
Pike, Peter


Dormand, Jack
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Dubs, Alfred
Prescott, John


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Radice, Giles


Eadie, Alex
Randall, Stuart


Eastham, Ken
Redmond, M.


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Faulds, Andrew
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Robertson, George


Flannery, Martin
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Rogers, Allan


Forrester, John
Rooker, J. W.


Foster, Derek
Rowlands, Ted


Fraser, J, (Norwood)
Sedgemore, Brian


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Sheerman, Barry


Freud, Clement
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Garrett, W. E.
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


George, Bruce
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Golding, John
Skinner, Dennis


Gould, Bryan
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Snape, Peter


Hardy, Peter
Soley, Clive


Harman, Ms Harriet
Steel, Rt Hon David


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Straw, Jack


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Heffer, Eric S.
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Tinn, James


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Torney, Tom


Howells, Geraint
Wainwright, R.


Hoyle, Douglas
Wallace, James


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Wareing, Robert


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Weetch, Ken


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
White, James


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Wigley, Dafydd


John, Brynmor
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Johnston, Sir Russell
Wilson, Gordon


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Winnick, David


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Woodall, Alec


Kennedy, Charles
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Kilroy-Silk, Robert



Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Tellers for the Noes:


Lambie, David
Mr. Allen McKay and


Lamond, James
Mr. Frank Haynes.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Order of the House [11th February] be supplemented as follows:—

LORDS AMENDMENTS

1. — (1) The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting, Those Amendments shall be taken in the order shown in the Table set out below, and, subject to the provisions of the Order of 11th February, each part of those proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of that Table.

TABLE


Lords Amendments
Time for conclusion


Nos. 1 to 3
6.00 p.m.


Nos. 4 to 8
7.45 p.m.


Nos. 9 to 12
8.45 p.m.


Nos. 13 to 42
9.15 p.m.


Nos. 43 to 47
10.00 p.m.


Nos. 48, 92 to 94, 49 to 91 and 95 to 98
Midnight

(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings for two hours after Ten o'clock.

2.—(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above:—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion moved by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment, or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment, as amended;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege, and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or, as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;
(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;
(iii) put forthwith with respect to each Amendment designated by Mr. Speaker which has not been disposed of, the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment; and

(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

(c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments

3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of the proceedings.

4. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;
(ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and
(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Supplemental

5. — (1) In this paragraph 'the proceedings' means proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.

(2) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of the Message or, as the case may be, for the appointment and quorum of the Committee.

(3) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which they are appointed.

(4) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(5) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(6) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.

Orders of the Day — Local Government Bill

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 4

DEVELOPMENT PLANS

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 3, line 11, leave out subsection (2).

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments thereto, (a) in page 3, line 12, leave out from 'establishment' to end of line 15 and insert
'in each metropolitan county of an authority to be known by the name of that county with the addition of the word "Authority", and the functions of those authorities in respect of planning matters'.
(b), in line 12, leave out from 'London' to end of line 15 and insert
'Authority, and the functions of the London Authority in respect of planning matters'.
Lords amendment No. 2, after clause 4, insert the following new clause—

Joint planning committee for Greater London

" .—(1) The local planning authorities in Greater London shall not later than the abolition date establish a joint committee to discharge the functions mentioned in subsection (2) below.

(2) The joint committee shall—

(a) consider and advise those authorities on matters of common interest relating to the planning and development of Greater London;
(b) inform the Secretary of State of the views of those authorities concerning such matters including any such matters as to which he has requested their advice;
(c) inform the local planning authorities for areas in the vicinity of Greater London, or any body on which those authorities and the local planning authorities in Greater London are represented, of the views of the local planning authorities in Greater London concerning any matters of common interest relating to the planning and development of Greater London and those areas;

and the committee may, if it thinks fit, contribute towards the expenses of any such body as is mentioned in paragraph (c) above.

(3) The expenses of the joint committee which have been incurred with the approval of at least two-thirds of the local planning authorities in Greater London shall be defrayed by those authorities in such proportions as they may decide or, in default of a decision by them, as the Secretary of State may determine.

(4) In this section references to the local planning authorities in Greater London are to the authorities which are the local planning authorities in Greater London for the purposes of Part II of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 or section 4 above.".

Amendments thereto:

(a), in line 4, at end insert
'and the local planning authorities which the councils of districts (in this section referred to as "district planning authorities") in each metropolitan county shall not later than that date establish a joint committee to discharge those functions.'.

(b), in line 8, at end insert 'or that county'.

(c), in line 12, after '(c)' insert
'in the case of Greater London'.

(d), in line 18, at end insert—
'(d) in the case of a metropolitan county inform the local planning authorities for areas in the vicinity of the

county or any body on which those authorities and the district planning authorities in the county are represented of the views of the district planning authorities in the county concerning any matters of common interest relating to the planning and development of the county and those areas;'.

(e), in line 18, at end insert—
'(d) issue guidance to local planning authorities in Greater London for the purposes of paragraph 2(4)(a) of Schedule I to this Act.'.

,(f) in line 19, leave out 'paragraph (c) above' and insert 'pagagraph (c) or (d) above, as the case may be'.

(g), in line 22, after 'Greater London', insert
'or of the district planning authorities in a metropolitan county'.

(h), in line 30, at end insert
'and references to district planning authorities are to the authorities which are local planning authorities for metropolitan districts for the purposes of that Part of that Act or section 4 above.'.

(i), in page 75, line 27, leave out 'Secretary of State', and insert
'joint committee established by section (Joint Planning Committee for Greater London) of this Act'.

Lords amendment No. 4, before clause 7, insert the following new clause—

Highway and Road Traffic functions

'. The Secretary of State shall by order taking effect on the abolition date make provision for the London Residuary Body to exercise the following functions relating to highways and road traffic in London to the extent and in the manner that such order shall provide—

(a) that the Body shall have a duty to prepare, in consultation with the borough councils, plans relating to highways and traffic in Greater London and the Body and borough councils shall have regard to such plans when exercising their stationary functions;
(b) that it shall be a duty of the Body to establish and maintain an organisation for the purpose of assembling, disseminating and keeping up to date, information on road traffic and other transport in Greater London and that the Body may commission such research and carry out such surveys as they think fit in fulfilment of this duty;
(c) That the Body shall have the functions of the highway authority under the Highways Act 1980 in relation to metropolitan roads;
(d) that not later than 1st April 1987 the Body shall, in consultation with the borough councils review the existing network of metropolitan roads and prepare and submit to the Secretary of State for his approval proposals for the revision of that network;
(e) that, as respects metropolitan roads, the Road Traffic Regualtion Act 1984 shall apply to the Body (for the purposes of traffic management and parking control) as they now apply to the Greater London Council;
(f) that the Body shall be a local authority for the purposes of section 38 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 (power of local authorities as to giving of road safety information and training);
(g) that the Body shall be authorised, for the purpose of regulating traffic on metropolitan roads, to exercise the powers of a borough council under the said Act of 1984 as respects roads communicating with or adjacent to metropolitan roads in accordance with procedures to be prescribed by the Secretary of State;
(h) that, for the purposes of ensuring that the exercise by the London borough council of their powers under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 does not have any adverse effect on traffic on roads for which they are not the highway authority, the Body shall be given reserve powers similar to those given to the Secretary of State in Part 1 of Schedule 9 of the said Act;
(i) that the Body may exercise the powers of a London borough council or the Common Council under sections 6 and 9 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 for the purposes of prohibiting or restricting such use of heavy


commercial vehicles as the Body considers expedient for preserving or improving the amenities of Greater London or some part or parts thereof;
(j) that the Body shall have a duty to control, manage, maintain and, where appropriate, develop and extend the system of urban traffic control through traffic light signals established by the Greater London Council;
(k) that the Body shall he a "London Authority" within the meaning of section 50 of the London Regional Transport Act 1984 (travel concessions on journeys in or around Greater London);
(l) that the Body shall be able to assist, by way of grant or loan, the provision of transport services by a voluntary organisation for the benefit of the public or any class of persons."

Amendment thereto, (a) in line 2, leave out 'Residuary Body' and insert 'Authority'.

Lords amendment No. 5, before clause 7,

Insert the following new clause—

Strategic Highways Functions in Metropolitan Counties.

". The Secretary of State shall by order taking effect on the abolition date make provision for the authority established by section 27 of this Act for each metropolitan county to exercise the following functions relating to highways and road traffic in that county to the extent and in the manner that such order shall provide—

(a) then in functions of the highway authority under the Highways Act 1980 in relation to principal roads within the county;
(b) the functions of a county council and a highway authority for the purpose of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 in relation to principal roads within the county;
(c) issuing guidance as to the manner in which in relation to non principal roads the councils of metropolitan districts should exercise their powers under the 1984 Act, for the purpose of ensuring that the exercise by such councils of those traffic powers in relation to non principal roads does not have an adverse effect on traffic or any class of traffic using principal roads within the county or any traffic or class of traffic in any area other than the area of the district council, as the case may be;
(d) the functions relating to the construction and maintenance of bridges within the county which on that date are the responsibility of the highway authority;
(e) the functions contained in the Road Traffic Acts 1972 and 1974 in so far as the same relate to road safety within the county; and
(f) the collection, examination, analysis and dissemination of data required for the discharge of those functions."

Amendment thereto, (a), in line 3, leave out
'the authority established by section 27 of this Act for each metropolitan county'
and insert
'each metropolitan county authority established by Part II of Schedule I to this Act'.

Amendment No. 9 (a) in clause 8, page 4, line 31, leave Out
'London borough councils and the Common Council'
and insert 'the London Authority'.

Amendment No. 9 (b), in line 33, leave out 'Metropolitan district Councils' and insert
'Metropolitan county authorities established by Part II of Schedule I to this Act'.

Lords amendment No. 48, in clause 55 page 38, line 38, at end insert—
(4) As soon as may be after the establishment of a joint committee under section 93 below for Greater London or a metropolitan county the Secretary of State shall, after consultation with that committee, appoint one of its members to be a member of the apprpriate residuary body.

Amendments thereto, (c), in line 38, at end insert—
'(4) The members of the London Residuary Body appointed under subsection (3) shall be such members of the London Authority as are nominated by that Authority to the Secretary of State for that purpose.'.

(d) in line 38, at end insert—

'(4) The members of each residuary body appointed under subsection (3) above shall be such members of the Metropolitan County Authority established by Part II of Schedule Ito this Act in the area of the appropriate residuary body as are nominated by that authority to the Secretary of State for that purpose.'.

Lords amendment No. 55, after clause 85—

Insert the following new clause—

Research and collection of information

" .—(1) A scheme may be made for Greater London or a metropolitan county by the constituent councils whereby one of those councils designated by the scheme has the function of—

(a) carrying out, or assisting in carrying out, investigations into, and the collection of informtion relating to, any matters concerning that area or any part of it; and
(b) making, or assisting in making, arrangements whereby any such information and the results of any such investigation are made available to any other local authority in that area, any government department or the public.

(2) Any such scheme shall require the other constituent councils to contribute as provided by subsection (3) below to the expenditure incurred by the designated council in carrying out its functions under the scheme.

(3) The constituent councils shall be required to contribute to any expenditure of the designated council which has been incurred with the approval of at least two-thirds of the constituent councils; and the amounts of the contributions shall be determined so that the expenditure in respect of which they are payable is borne by the constituent councils in proportion to the populations of their respective areas.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (3) above the population of any area shall be taken to be the number estimated by the Registrar General and certified by him to the Secretary of State by reference to such date as the Secretary of State may from time to time determine.

(5) A scheme may provide that, if two-thirds of the constituent councils so decide, the designated council may require all or any of the constituent councils other than the designated council to carry out in respect of their respective areas an investigation into, or the collection of information relating to, any specified matter concerning the area covered by the scheme or any part of it; and where such a requirement is imposed on a council—

(a) that council shall comply with the requirement in such manner and within such time as may be specified in the requirement; and
(b) if that council fails to comply with the requirement the designated council may itself do what was required and recover the cost of doing it from that council.

(6) The expenditure which is to be borne as mentioned in subsection (3) above shall not include—

(a) any expenditure of the designated council which is recoverable by virtue of paragraph (b) of subsection (5) above; or
(b) if a requirement is imposed by virtue of that subsection on all the constituent councils other than the designated council, any expenditure incurred by that council in doing in respect of its own area what it has required the other councils to do in respect of their areas.

(7) Any information collected by the designated council, and the results of any investigation carried out by it, in the exercise of its functions under the scheme shall be made available, on request, to each of the other constituent councils.

(8) A scheme shall not come into force before the abolition date but shall continue in force until the end of at least two financial years after that in which it is made.

(9) A scheme may, in the absence of agreement between all the constituent councils, be made by a majority of those councils so as to be binding on all of them; but a council shall not be designated by a scheme except with its consent.

(10) A scheme may contain such supplementary provisions as the councils making the scheme think necessary or expedient and, subject to subsection (8) above, may be revoked by those councils (or, in the absence of agreement between all of them, by a majority of those councils) with effect from the end of any financial year after that in which the decision to revoke the scheme is made.

(11) The council designated by a scheme may be giving not less than twelve months notice to the other constituent councils withdraw its consent to act as the designated council with effect from the end of any financial year not earlier than the second


financial year after that in which the scheme was made; and in that event the scheme shall terminate when the withdrawal takes effect.

(12) For the purposes of this section the constituent councils are—

(a) in relation to Greater London, the London borough councils and the Common Council; and
(b) in relation to a metropolitan county, the councils of the metropolitan districts comprised in the county.

(13) Whether or not a scheme is made under this section a London borough council, the Common Council and a metropolitan district council shall have the power to exercise any of the functions described in subsection (1)(a) and (b) above.

(14) The appropriate Minister with respect to any matter may require any such council as is mentioned in subsection (13) above to provide him with any information with respect to that matter which is in the possession of, or available to, that council in consequence of the exercise of any powers conferred by or under any enactment."

Amendments thereto:

(a) in line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 4 and insert
'It shall be the function of each Metropolitan authority established by Part II of Schedule 1 to this Act to make arrangements for—'.

(b) in line 11, at end insert
'in the area of the Metropolitan authority'.

(c) in line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 and insert
'It shall be the function of the London Authority to make arrangements for—'.

(d) in line 11, leave out subsections (2) to (14).

Lords amendment No. 61, in schedule 1, page 86, line 38, leave out paragraph 18.

Amendments thereto:

(a) in page 86, line 38, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.

(b) in line 38, leave out
'at any time after the passing of the Act'
and insert 'on the abolition date'.

(c) in line 39, after 'body', insert 'in each metropolitan county'.

(d) in line 39, leave out from 'known' to 'guidance' in line 40 and insert
'by the name of that metropolitan county with the addition of the word "Authority" to prepare.'.

(e) in line 40, leave out
'Planning Commission to assist him in preparing'
and insert 'Authority to prepare'.

(f) in line 41, leave out `Greater London' and insert 'the relevant metropolitan county'.

(g) in line 42, leave out 'him' and insert 'the Secretary of State'.

(h) in line 43, leave out
'for the appointment and terms of office of members of the commission'
and insert
'for the members of each metropolitan county authority to be elected by the local government electors of the relevant metropolitan county in accordance with this Act and the Representation of the People Act 1983'.

(i) in line 45, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.

(j) in line 46, leave out
'for the appointment and terms of office of members of the Commission'
and insert
'for the members of the London Authority to be elected by the local government electors of Greater London in accordance with this Act and the Representation of the People Act 1983;'.

(k) in page 87, line 1, leave out 'the commission' and insert 'each authority'.

(l) in line 1, leave out 'Commission' and insert 'Authority'.

(m) in line 4, leave out 'the commission' and insert 'each authority'.

(n) in line 4, leave out 'Commission' and insert 'Authority'.

(o) in page 87, leave out lines 5 and 6.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With all due respect to you, Mr. Speaker, and acknowledging that London is a marvellous place, of the eight speakers called during the debate on the guillotine motion, including a Minister and a Front Bench Opposition spokesman, five were London Members and not one Member was called from a constituency which is part of a metropolitan county. With respect, Mr. Speaker, I ask you to acknowledge that millions live in the metropolitan counties that are affected by the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: I am well aware of that. Unfortunately, there was only an hour's debate on the guillotine motion.

Mr. John Fraser: 

"It will be generally agreed that Greater London, an area of some 610 square miles containing seven million people, must continue to be more than an agglomeration of 32 boroughs with different degrees of urban disease".

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman quoted figures of employees of the GLC and went on to say that there will be no democratic representation. Will he confirm that the figures included the entire work force and staff of ILEA? Under the Bill, the members of ILEA will be democratically elected. Therefore, the hon Gentleman is talking nonsense.

Mr. Fraser: I concede that the right hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that those who work for the ILEA will be controlled by a directly elected body. Why does the same principle not apply to every other county function that is being preserved as a result of the amendments made largely in another place under pressure from the Opposition? What is good for the ILEA and for countrywide local government at the moment should obtain in the future. Government supporters have the chance to vote for Opposition amendments, which would enable that democratic structure to be preserved. Otherwise, we shall simply have a distortion of local democracy. The main burden of our amendments is to give a democratic accountability to those functions which will continue not on a district or a borough basis, but on a countywide basis.
The second main purpose of the amendments is to recognise the reality of planning our conurbations, and to give each metropolitan county a joint planning commission, which would be elected. One cannot plan a road system from one borough to another. One has to deal with land use on a conurbation basis. A magnificent change has taken place in the nature of south London as a result of the GLC financing over many years on a countywide basis, for example, with the creation of


Burgess park. Much of south London was too densely populated and people were living with no green around them at all.
It is impossible to have such a planning function simply on a borough basis. On such a basis, it is impossible to plan the skyline around our cities, planning that is very important both in London and parts of Yorkshire, where, without adequate planning, it is possible to destroy the skyline.
The argument for planning our conurbations on a conurbationwide basis is made out in the Government's proposals on inner cities. The Government do not treat inner city policy as a subject merely for one borough or another. They recently set up, with a flourish from the Prime Minister, an organisation called City Action Teams, or CATs for short. As the Association of Metropolitan Authorities observed, what the country needs is not cats, but mice—more inner city expenditure.
At any rate, when looking at the problems of the inner city, the Government did not choose to do so from borough to borough or district to district. They took a strategic overall view, and said that Government Departments and local authorities must come together to take a strategic view of the inner city. The inner city should be planned in that way. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said, we shall repeal the Bill at the earliest opportunity. The further the Bill gets in its passage, the nearer the opportunity will come for a Labour Government to undertake that task.
In the meantime, the amendments amount to no more than interim measures. They at least restore to planning some democratic accountability and sense. For that reason alone, I ask hon. Members on both sides of the House to support our amendments.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: I wish to speak to amendment (b)
to the words so restored to the Bill":—
Page 3, line 12, leave out from 'London' to end of line 15 and insert
'Authority, and the functions of the London Authority in respect of planning matters'.
The Government made some concessions in the other place to various aspects of the Bill, but from the point of view of those in all parties who have opposed the Bill all the way through, and regarded it as a sad piece of legislation, to say the least, that has not been sufficient to repair the damage that is contained in many parts of the Bill. In the other place the Government lost some crucial amendments on significant occasions, but it was not enough to persuade them to depart from the central and still extremely unwelcome aspects of the Bill's structure.
Amendment (b) deals only with aspects to do with London, but later amendments incorporate the metropolitan counties. At this late stage it is worth remembering that my hon. Friends and colleagues in all parts of the House still have an opportunity to do some useful repair work to the Bill's structure. The confusion and chaos in the original text has to some extent been made worse by the Government's concessions in an attempt to achieve a more rational structure. Despite their Lordships' interesting and heroic efforts—I pay particular tribute to Lord Plummer for his amendments — the position is more difficult than previously.
With this amendment my colleagues and I suggest a significant adjustment to help the Government produce a much better structure. We do not seek to push them too far, or oblige them to depart from their original manifesto commitment, which is adhered to in the Bill. In some respects our arguments, fortuitously and felicitously, coincide with those of the Opposition Front Bench, but they are significantly and interestingly different. The substantial effect of the amendment is to put London's strategic planning, highways and traffic control, waste disposal and the important but often forgotten citywide research services into one directly elected London authority.
Thus, we return to the theme of the body being directly elected. The body is not to be compared in any way with the existing Greater London council. It has no relationship to it and is wholly different. It would be a small body, which would meet the Government's objectives of saving costs, and would have the opposite effect to the present one. The Coopers and Lybrand report shows beyond all doubt that the whole exercise will cost a one-off £170 million. That may be the top end of its range of estimates of the extra cost.
The amendment would transform the residuary body — which was supposed to be a marginal tidying-up body, but which has acquired more and more functions, which the Government's planners could not put elsewhere, as the text became more problematic—into a London authority. The amendment would also provide, together with related later amendments, that the London authority should nominate members of the London residuary body, instead of the Secretary of State.
In the other place successful amendments transferred parts of highways and traffic to the London residuary body. As has already been said, the boroughs end up with only a small minority of the total activities and expenditure in gross terms, contrary to the original intentions of both the manifesto and the Secretary of State. Although my hon. Friends and I believe that the decentralisation proposed for the boroughs in the change for the residuary body is right, it is not appropriate to move the remaining overall Londonwide highways and traffic functions to a temporary nominated quango, such as the London residuary body or a joint board.
The amendment is valuable in that it deals with direct elections, and immediately and specifically makes possible the co-ordination of those four important citywide services—planning, highways and traffic control, waste disposal and the research unit — into one London authority. Obviously, we want the authority to be directly elected because its powers and expenditure will be substantial, and it should be accountable to the ratepayers who will have to pay for its functions. We in this House and the other place will anyway have to return to the question of direct elections in separate legislation in due course.
As the Secretary of State has often reminded us, the Conservative party election manifesto promised to abolish the GLC on the grounds that it was a wasteful body and an unnecessary tier of government. Those arguments have been rendered otiose by the passage of the Bill and the detailed examination of all the arguments for and against it. We shall be left with a yawning gap and major lacuna in London local government, unless this admittedly late-in-the-day adjustment is made.
At the end of the Bill's passage — the Government will no doubt have a chance to refer to this later—there is little talk in official circles about saving large sums through abolition. All the evidence suggests that Londoners will face heavy one-off bills, and annually recurring bills for these regrettable changes. I do not exaggerate when I say that this is a tragic piece of legislation in every respect.
5.15 pm
The Londonwide tier of government will remain in a structural sense because the GLC's services have been distributed among various quangos, joint boards and joint committees, most of which will be under close ministerial supervision. Instead of the long-standing and solemn tradition of democratic co-ordinated government for London under whatever political control — elections come and go, to give all parties a chance—we have a muddle and a plethora of different bodies, which confuse everyone, including the Department, and none of which is directly elected. The boroughs will get about one third of the GLC's services in terms of gross revenue expenditure, excluding debt charges, according to the latest calculations, as opposed to most of the expenditure and functions, which was promised as the central rationale of the legislation when it began its unhappy passage.
One of the worst features of the new scheme for London government is that the entire operation seems to be confused, botched-up and temporary. In a few years' time Parliament will have to return to the subject, and do a major repair job. All parliamentarians must find it tragic to think of all the hours that have been wasted on the legislation. I, therefore, ask the House, especially the Secretary of State, even at this late stage to rise to the occasion, to retrieve something secure from this confusion and chaos, to put the essential services together in one authority rather than into the proposed body, and to make it directly elected and wholly separate and different from the existing GLC, with none of the Left-wing hang ups that have rightly irritated Conservative Members. In that way, we would once again have sensible local government in London.

Mr. Peter Hardy: I hope that the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) will forgive me if I do not follow his comments in detail. He spoke largely about London, whereas my interest lies in south Yorkshire. So far London and the Greater London council have attracted most attention in this debate. The hon. Gentleman suggested that their Lordships have made some minor improvements, and that may be the case. Some noble Lords who may normally be solid supporters of the Conservative party put the country's interest before those of their party in a way which I should like hon. Members in this House to do. The hon. Gentleman may be rather relaxed about the matter because he foresees further legislation in a few years' time. Our worry is that hon. Members from south Yorkshire do not have the time or the opportunity for a leisurely view. The economy of south Yorkshire is appalling and is deteriorating day by day. We are losing more than 200 jobs a week. This is not the time for the Government to plunge the area into the costly chaos that is bound to develop.
Conservative Members know that south Yorkshire metropolitan county has a vigorous, thriving and growing public transport system based on low fares. What has escaped their attention is the fact that ridership has

increased. The Government dislike the system and, for no other reason, they have adopted an attitude of hatred towards the county council, and cheer its departure because they want to privatise bus services, which in our area are first class.
I am especially interested in participating in the debate because of the other aspects of the South Yorkshire county council that deserve consideration. It has a high reputation for its environmental work. It commands respect for as intelligent approach towards strategic planning responsibilities, which are now to be changed at a time when the economic condition is critical.
The Minister does not have responsibility for steel and coal, but if he had he would turn grey at what is happening to our special steels industry. The week before last, we heard of the decision to close the British Steel Corporation's relatively new works at Tinsley Park, which he may have visited when he was at the Department of Trade and Industry. Last week, the River Don works, Britain's only large heavy forging and casting capacity, lost 500 or 600 jobs. In the coal industry, 4,000 or 5,000 jobs have been lost within a matter of months. This has happened while the Government are destroying our strategic planning capacity. Within the planning operation and generally, the county council has developed a splendid, internationally commended reputation in environmental protection. That is well known. If the Secretary of State cares to check, he will see that I am making no false or extravagant claims. The county council has done enormous work in recognising and conserving the ecology of our county. It has achieved much in the reclamation of derelict land. The Minister may be aware, despite the contraction of our coal industry, that there is a continuing problem of colliery spoil. There is a continuing and growing need to maintain the current work of the county council in land reclamation. I fear that the measure and the Government's attitude to the modest amendments carried in the other place will be of enormous disadvantage to the county.
I hope that the Secretary of State will not feel that I am being unfair, but the other day I heard him telling a substantial and important gathering how deeply committed the Conservative party was to conservation. He claimed that it is the party concerned with conservation in Britain. I am well aware of what the Conservative party is disposed to conserve.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Themselves.

Mr. Hardy: The Secretary of State made substantial claims on Saturday. However, I am patron of the Yorkshire Wildlife Trust. There may be other hon. Members from my region who subscribe to the organisation. It is a long-established and reputable body.

Dr. Keith Hampson: indicated assent.

Mr. Hardy: I am glad to have the confirmation of the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson). The West Yorkshire and South Yorkshire metropolitan county councils are the two most important financial supporters of the trust. If they disappear, the income they provide for the trust, which performs an important function in the county, will be imperilled. It is all right for the Minister to say that the quangos or the borough councils that will inherit the responsibility will be able to offer the same


support, but hon. Members from Yorkshire, and perhaps other hon. Members, will be aware that, under the rate-capping arrangements and contracting central support for local government to which the Government continue to be committed, there is no possibility of maintaining the support currently given by the county councils. If the Minister pretends otherwise, he is doing his Department and the House a disservice. It worries me that at a time when we need to enhance our environment, to invest in the economy and the environmental infrastructure, to give our crushed and critical economy some chance, to give our young people some hope and to provide some decency for the leisure of those who have gone in huge numbers into the dole queues, one major area of leisure is put under a severe and unacceptable threat. I hope that even at this late stage the Minister will recognise that, whatever concessions he may be prepared to make for London, he is making far too few concessions for the metropolitan counties in the north. In my county, the economic position is grave. The environment will be seriously disadvantaged entirely as a result of this petty, politically motivated and grossly unattractive measure.

Dr. Hampson: I am glad to have the opportunity to follow my colleague from Yorkshire, the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy). It is undoubtedly true that there is anxiety about several of the changes that will result from the Bill, largely from the cash point of view. However, I do not understand why the matters that the hon. Gentleman raised, especially those relating to the environment, cannot be dealt with under a different structure, provided that sufficient resources are available. Today, we are dealing with the structures through which such services are carried out.
Since the Government came to power in 1979, they have talked about the abolition or reform of the metropolitan county structure. The matter was discussed in the Department of the Environment early in the life of this Government. No report on local government recommended the present metropolitan county structure. It was a compromise. Some of us thought from the beginning that it was a botched compromise, because those authorities were large, had large bureaucracies and incurred vast expenditure on salaries, but had relatively restricted functions. There was no case for continuing them. It was not only Conservative Members or members of the Government in 1979 who believed that; most Labour city leaders believed that. Mr. Ken Livingstone in London and the leaders in Leeds, Birmingham and Merseyside believed that, because there was no balance of responsibilities at the county level as there was at the shire level. They were not responsible for education, but they were responsible for substantial transport systems, the police and the fire services.
I do not accept that this legislation is tragic. It is bringing us back to the position in which we should have been from the start. Those authorities should never have existed, and are unnecessary. The Liberal party and the SDP today agreed that they are unnecessary. However, what they want in their place is equally horrendous, because I believe that the British people want powers pushed back down to a lower level, not the accumulation powers at a regional level.

Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman must realise that the position is different in London. London has had directly elected, citywide government since the London county council was set up in 1889. Therefore, it is nothing new. If the metropolitan county councils are abolished, there will still be city government in Sheffield, Liverpool and Manchester, but there will be none in London. That is the difference.

Dr. Hampson: The point is that history moves on and structures do not remain absolute in value. In London the scale of responsibilities of the citywide authority has steadily diminished under all parties. Only about 10 per cent. of the resources spent on the individual citizen in London is channelled through the GLC. What is the value of the body? My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) always emphasises the need for "a voice" for London. I have never understood whom that voice is for, or to whom it is addressed. I can understand the ceremonial function and that people from around the world might want to be received, but the City of London could do that as well as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks).

Mr. Simon Hughes: Can the hon. Member explain the intention of the person who gave money to the Horniman museum, over the door of which is the inscription, to which the Bishop of Southwark referred,
Given to the London County Council as Representative of the people of London in perpetuity"?
What authority other than the GLC or a county council can take responsibility for all citizens and look after all their interests?

Dr. Hampson: City government thoughout the world varies enormously. Municipal authorities elsewhere manage because such gifts are given to parts of cities or to institutions. There is nothing sacrosanct about a particular representative body for a city such as London. London happens to have evolved in a way which is different from other cities. Paris has evolved in yet another way. It has an elected mayor who has almost absolute power, whereas other elected representatives have little or no say. Power there is centralised. Nothing decrees that a particular body should speak for London and have particular powers.
If we had not transferred housing and other major responsibilities down the line the argument would be different. I should have thought that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), since he represents the Liberal party, would argue in favour of passing responsibilities down the line. He seemed to say that powers should be passed up to a regional body, which is even more divorced from the citizen. Most of my constituents do not know who their county councillors are or what functions they have, so how on earth would they know who to turn to at regional level?

Mr. Richard Tracey: Only inner London had a county council structure and it was called the London county council. The county of Surrey and the county of Middlesex represented many outer London boroughs. Previously most of the metropolitan areas were county boroughs, which were smaller, unitary authorities and therefore more understandable to the public.

Mr. Hampson: The people of Leeds wanted to remain within a county borough. No one recommended the metropolitan county of West Yorkshire, although I am sad to say that a Conservative Government created it. It makes no sense. It is not a metropolitan conglomeration but a huge city with a number of other small towns.

Mr. Harry Cowans: The hon. Gentleman's argument would make sense if the Government intended to pass back to the old county boroughs or districts the functions they lost, but they are not doing that. They are setting up unelected, undemocratic quangos with no responsibility or accountability to the people of Leeds or anywhere else.

Dr. Hampson: I am glad the hon. Gentleman has allowed me to return to my course. I want to deal with precisely those matters. People talk about the residuary body.—[Hon Members: "What is it?"] It is as described by definitiion. It is not intended to exist in perpetuity. Most of us believe that it is important to put the reorganisation on the road, to find out the rough edges and to resolve the problems.
Some of the amendments are farcical. The residuary body is intended to find out how to deal with the functions and to farm them out to the appropriate quarter. Such a body should not be elected. We do not want the residuary body to be perpetuated by making it an elected body.
The House of Lords has the notion that elections should take place for people who are to deal with tiny functions. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East, for whom I have a great respect on a European level, wants a directly elected body to deal with waste—an important function—research agencies, libraries and museums. That is in the realms of farce. We do not have a tradition of direct elections to deal with specific functions.
In other countries such activities are handled on a broader basis on behalf of others by a single elected authority. Even in Britain we have a strong tradition of one authority acting on behalf of another. In education, for example, children can cross a boundary and be educated at a neighbouring school and one authority pays the recipient authority. We have a long tradition of agency agreements. Research facilities, safety inspectorates, quality controls and consumer standards can be operated by one authority on behalf of another through an agency agreement. That is a long-standing practice. An elected body is not necessary to perform that function.

Mr. Dykes: Why make ILEA a directly elected body?

Dr. Hampson: I opposed that idea. I do not wish to be side tracked into that argument. At least I was, and am, consistent.
If we trust the authorities and place responsibilities firmly on them, rather than allowing them to hedge and pass the buck up the line to a nebulous body such as the county council, they will get together and reach agreement.
We tend to view government in the United States in terms of the Senate and Congress, but I have lectured on their history and politics and experienced local government there. Town planning is the responsibility of the town. Small communities and county-level government devise their own plans for their communities. Areas such as Texas deliberately might do little in the way of planning. Where they do, in the east coast states, for

example, boundaries adjoin and yet agreements are reached. When I was there last week I found local officials meeting over breakfast. Perhaps that is a good thing because there is less disagreement likely at that time.
The current proposition is not as absurd as some people think. We have accepted many tiers and people spend years making structural plans, decisions often overturned on appeal to the Secretary of State. In many ways the arbiters of planning proposals are the Secretary of State's regional officials. We do not need all the present tiers because people can get together at a planning level to resolve difficulties amicably.
These proposals are long overdue. The present county and London levels are unnecessary and the more quickly that we get rid of them the happier I and my constituents shall be.

Mr. John Cartwright: The most revealing point made by the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) came at the end of his contribution when he claimed that the Government's proposals are not so absurd as many people think—an admission that the Government's argument is not getting across so well as Ministers claim.
Hon. Members on both sides believe that this group of amendments provides the last chance of maintaining a minimal elected authority in each of the metropolitan areas and in Greater London. Unlike the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West, I believe that the powers proposed in these amendments are coherent and should be operated on a conurbationwide basis covering strategic planning, highways and traffic, waste disposal, central and support services and research and information. Those are all essential, practical services, not the high-visibility political issues which cause anxiety to so many people. The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West claimed that this was a minimal series of responsibilities for which to have people elected, but I believe that it entails a great deal more responsibility to exercise those powers across a metropolitan area or the Greater London area than is exercised by many elected district authorities.

Dr. Hampson: Is it not sensible that decisions on the important functions which affect neighbouring authorities should be taken by representatives from the directly elected district councils who have the interests of their communities at heart? The people on those joint bodies could then resolve the difficulties.

Mr. Cartwright: Some of us have experience of trying to get this sort of agreement at local level when the interest of one borough or district is different from that of its neighbours. It is not easy to achieve. This is one area in which some hon. Members are sceptical about the Government's belief that co-operation and co-ordination will magically break out at district or borough level and that it will be all right on the night. This has not happened in practice because, for perfectly understandable and defensible reasons, local authorities fight their corner and for their people. They do not see the overall needs of the wider area, nor should they when they are elected to do a rather different job.
The Government accept that many of these conurbationwide powers cannot be exercised by individual authorities because the Government have created an extraordinary patchwork quilt of joint boards, quangos and other authorities. Much of the expert evidence heard


during the Committee stage gives the lie to the belief that there will be co-ordination and co-operation at borough and district level.
Their Lordships went some way to recognise that key services are best carried out at metropolitan level. I welcome the idea of a joint planning committee for Greater London which will give elected borough councillors a chance to discuss planning issues, to represent their views to the Secretary of State and to send representatives to the south-east planning body. Having provided that committee for London, why will the Government not provide the same machinery for the other metropolitan areas, where the problems are the same and sometimes even worse—run-down inner city areas, declining industries, difficulty in attracting new developments and new jobs and problems with public and private transport? It is wildly illogical to provide that machinery for London and to deny it to the other metropolitan authorities.
I endorse what the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) said about the need to view inner city problems on a conurbationwide basis. Our experience of metropolitan government has made it clear that it is impossible to solve inner city problems on the basis of inner city areas alone. One must take a wider view. For example, the Thamesmead new town development in my constituency is a highly imaginative scheme originally launched by the Greater London council. No one could possibly suggest that such a gigantic project could have been undertaken by one or two borough or district authorities.
5.45 pm
The philosophy of this legislation is in sharp contrast with commitments given by the Conservatives before they came to power in 1979. When the Labour Government were considering the question of organic change—the idea of giving powers back to some of the biggest of the former county boroughs—the present Secretary of State for Defence was reported in the Local Government Chronicle of 9 March 1979 to have told the Conservative party local government conference in March 1979 in his traditionally strong and robust manner that the Conservative party rejected the idea of a reform of local government structure. He said:
I do not believe for one moment that the British people are looking for a major upheaval in local government.
He went on to say:
Change for change's sake or expensive experiments with the ratepayers' money must be ruled out and that must be the position of the Conservative party.
The right hon. Gentleman announced that he had had discussions with the leaders of the Association of County Councils, the Association of District Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. He went on to make a clear declaration:
We are agreed that we do not seek another major reorganisation of local government because we are certain that change in this field is likely to be expensive and divisive.
It has certainly been divisive, and from the Coopers and Lybrand studies it is clear that it will also be expensive. The GLC figure for the transitional costs is between £122 million and £167 million. Even on the most optimistic Coopers and Lybrand assessment it would take almost 12 years of annual savings to recoup that kind of expenditure.
The present Prime Minister, speaking at the same conference, promised a close relationship between a Conservative Government and Conservative local authorities. She declared:
We've worked with you in Opposition. I want to say very strongly that we shall go on working with you in Government.
Clearly, she felt that there was some scepticism on that point because she went on to say:
In case that comes as a shock to those of you with long memories—I repeat—we shall go on working with you in Government. Good Government rests on a partnership between Whitehall and town hall.
She concluded:
We are going to give back to you more of the responsibility for running your own affairs.
That will raise a very hollow laugh from many Conservative councillors up and down the country who are suffering even tighter control from the Department of the Environment. It would certainly get a short, sharp and rude response from those Conservative councillors whose councils will be abolished by the Bill. Conservative Members who believe in the traditional Conservative view of local government should support the amendments.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: This short debate has allowed the House to rehearse various arguments which have been extensively debated on previous occasions in this House and in another place. In those circumstances, it would not be right for me to go on too long. I shall therefore set out briefly the Government view on the points made by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) and others.
There seem to be three substantive issues. The first concerns planning in London. I was grateful for the welcome given by the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) to the amendment accepted in another place. Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 2 and the consequential Lords amendment No. 61 provide for a joint committee of borough council representatives instead of the appointed London planning commission originally envisaged in the Bill. The purpose of the joint committee would be to consider matters of common interest relating to the planning and development of Greater London and to inform the Secretary of State and neighbouring planning authorities of its views. It is important to note that the joint committee will not itself be a planning authority but an advisory committee, as the originally proposed London planning commission would have been.
The Lords amendments owe a good deal to the wisdom of my noble Friend Lord Sandford who has great experience in these matters. The London planning commission as an appointed expert body did not find much favour in another place. Instead, there was felt to be a need to co-ordinate the borough councils' approach to planning in and around London. The proposal for a joint committee has the support of the London Boroughs Association and of SERPLAN, the South East Regional Planning Conference. The Government are satisfied that that change made by the other place is an improvement, and I hope that the House will accept the relevant Lords amendments.
The Opposition amendments to Lords amendment No. 2 seek to do two things. First, they seek to extend the joint committee concept to the six metropolitan counties. Secondly—the hon. Member for Norwood touched on this briefly — they would empower the London joint committee, but, strangely, not the metropolitan joint committees, to issue guidance to which borough councils must have regard in preparing their unitary development plans.
I hope that the House will reject both Opposition amendments to Lords amendment No. 2. The Government remain unconvinced that there is any need for special planning machinery to cover the metropolitan county areas. In this context London is and always has been seen to be a special case. London has more than three times as many planning authorities as the largest metropolitan county and the impact of London's development on the surrounding area is far greater and more complex than that of any other conurbation in England. Our original proposal for a London planning commission recognised those facts and the decision to substitute a joint committee of the boroughs cannot alter the case against providing anything comparable for the metropolitan counties because there is simply no need for any such provision. Each of the metropolitan districts will be a powerful elected planning authority in its own right. To impose a joint planning committee would be an unnecessary bureaucratic top hamper and I advise the House to reject the amendments which call for it.

Mr. Wareing: The right hon. Gentleman may regard London's problems as quantitatively greater than those of areas such as Merseyside or Tyne and Wear, but under the Bill the powers granted to the joint planning commission for London will go to the Secretary of State in the case of the metropolitan counties. That is even more bureaucratic. Does the right hon. Gentleman envisage no possibility of conflict between district councils such as Liverpool and Sefton? Such conflict does not make for good local government planning. What advantage is there to the metropolitan counties in the system proposed in the Bill?

Mr. Jenkin: In the case of town and country planning powers in the metropolitan counties the proposal has always been that strategic guidance would be drawn up by the Department of the Environment in response to planning conferences held within the areas concerned. The broad, strategic guidance is and always has been a function of central Government Departments. To try to interpose an extra layer between the powerful district and borough planning authorities and the strategic guidance — I emphasise the word "strategic"—which must inevitably come from central Government will merely create confusion and difficulty, as has already occurred when large bodies of that kind interfere with the planning functions of a large number of districts and boroughs.
Thirdly, amendments to various parts of the Bill seek to provide for multi-purpose directly elected authorities either for London or for the six metropolitan counties or for all seven areas. A number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), have spoken in favour of those amendments.
I note with some relief that this really is the last opportunity to debate this issue. No one has ever denied its importance. It has been the central issue in the Bill. It has been debated time and again at every stage of the Bill—on clause 1 on the Floor of the House, on several occasions in the Standing Committee and again on Report. On that last occasion, on 27 March, the Voice for London amendment was defeated by 335 votes to 193. Now, undaunted — perhaps refreshed after three months' freedom from the need to debate the matter — hon. Members on both sides have returned to the charge yet again.

Mr. Corbyn: And the Government still have not answered the case.

Mr. Jenkin: The formation of the proposal is slightly different from those previously advanced, but the objective is the same. Whatever hon. Members may say, the objective is the retention in a different form of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jenkin: No, I have only six minutes left—

Mr. Corbyn: The Secretary of State is destroying local government, but he will not give way to the chairman of the GLC.

Mr. Jenkin: I know that a number of my hon. Friends are and always have been opposed to the abolition of the GLC, but I find the Opposition's stance puzzling. They have not put their names to the amendments relating to London, although they are supposed to be against abolition of the GLC. It is time that we were told what the Opposition policy for London really is.

Mr. Corbyn: Democratic government.

Mr. Jenkin: Do the Opposition agree with the Frankenstein horror of a report currently going the rounds at County hall which proposes to recreate not just the GLC but a body which could take unto itself a whole mass of additional powers, including powers over the London police, many of the functions of the London boroughs, stretching its tentacles right out into the green belt to commutor services and so forth?

Mr. Corbyn: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jenkin: That report proposes to lop off a number of outer London boroughs so as to give the resulting body a permanent and undefeatable Labour majority. We need to know whether the Opposition support those proposals.
As for the metropolitan counties, we were interested to see the press notice referring to a letter from the Leader of the Opposition to the leader of West Yorkshire county council, Councillor John Gunnell. The Leader of the Opposition was asked what was the Labour party's future commitment. We now know the answer to that question. The Leader of the Opposition wrote on 4 July:
With regard to the future commitment of the party I am quite sure that the strong case for strategic authorities in the metropolitan areas which you have advanced so well will influence our future policy considerations.
That seems a less than wholehearted commitment to restore the metropolitan county councils.

Mr. Tony Banks: Read the rest of it.

Mr. Jenkin: The Government view has always been clear. We oppose recreation of the GLC or the metropolitan county councils in any form. Those authorities do not have enough functions to justify their existence as separate directly elected tiers of local government.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Jenkin: Although the amendments proposed today differ in some respects from those put forward on earlier occasions, neither they, nor, with great respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East, any of the speeches that we have heard today, begin to make out a case for successor authorities.
Those who advocate directly elected authorities for London and the metropolitan counties have consistently failed to answer the following point. They know that the present arrangements do not work. They know that the boroughs and districts are now the major providers of local government services in those areas. They also know that major strategic planning and strategic transport decisions inevitably fall to central Government rather than to local government. That has always been so and will continue to be so in the future. Any attempt to stake out an area between the strong boroughs and districts and the central Government functions to be covered by an intermediate tier responsible for planning, highways, waste disposal and so on is doomed to failure. It is a very small area and certainly not large enough to justify a separate directly elected authority.

Mr. Nellist: rose—

Mr. Jenkin: At an earlier stage, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East and other Conservative Members argued that we should abolish the GLC and establish a new body with most of the same functions. That was illogical. They now say that we should abolish the GLC and establish a body covering only a few of those functions. That is even more illogical. If the GLC itself does not have enough functions to justify its existence, how can a body with even fewer functions be justified?

Mr. Nellist: rose—

Mr. Jenkin: The case for directly elected countrywide authorities for London or the metropolitan counties does not stand up. Between the functions of the boroughs and districts, which are the major providers of services, and the functions of central Government, which are and always have been wider than those of individual boroughs and districts, there is simply not room for an intermediate tier. Acting jointly, the boroughs and districts can, with central Government, provide all the co-ordination that is necessary.
I do not deny the importance of this issue, but it has been debated time and again in both Houses of Parliament and time and again the changes proposed in the amendments have been firmly rejected. I ask the House to reject them firmly today.

Mr. Nellist: I had hoped that while the Secretary of State was speaking, attempting to clear up in people's minds the commitments made from the Opposition Front Bench, he would clear up the confusion resulting from his statements. He said at the beginning of this exercise that 7,100 jobs and £100 million would go if we did not have democratically-elected authorities. Where are those jobs to go? What services? Which counties? What were the targets in the mind of the Secretary of State when he started making those statements one and a half years ago? In Committee and so far on Report we have had no explanation. The hopes and aspirations of working people in the metropolitan areas and the GLC and the security of their jobs—

It being Six o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Tony Banks: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. Does the point of order relate to the Division?

Mr. Banks: Yes. We have just had a speech from the Secretary of State for the Environment which lasted about 12 minutes, or one sixth of the allotted time in which the Government have forced the House to consider—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that this is not a point of order for me. I am not responsible for Ministers' speeches or their length.

Mr. Banks: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was trying to ask you to protect the rights of Members who want to raise points because you decide when an hon. Member will be called. Ministers who coerce the House in terms of the guillotine should not be given a disproportionate amount of time to speak.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but he will know that the House has passed the allocation of time motion and it is my job to ensure that the will of the House in that respect is carried out.

Mr. Banks: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have dealt with the hon. Gentleman's point. He is now getting close to arguing with the Chair.

The House having divided: Ayes 319, Noes 177.

Division No. 256]
6 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)


Aitken, Jonathan
Browne, John


Alexander, Richard
Bruce, Malcolm


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bruinvels, Peter


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Bryan, Sir Paul


Amess, David
Buck, Sir Antony


Ancram, Michael
Burt, Alistair


Ashby, David
Butcher, John


Aspinwall, Jack
Butler, Hon Adam


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Butterfill, John


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Carlisle, John (N Luton)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Cartwright, John


Baldry, Tony
Cash, William


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Batiste, Spencer
Chapman, Sydney


Beith, A. J.
Chope, Christopher


Bellingham, Henry
Churchill, W. S.


Bendall, Vivian
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)


Bennett, Rt Hon Sir Frederic
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Best, Keith
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Clegg, Sir Walter


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Cockeram, Eric


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Colvin, Michael


Body, Richard
Coombs, Simon


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Cope, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Couchman, James


Bottomley, Peter
Cranborne, Viscount


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Crouch, David


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Dicks, Terry


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Dover, Den


Bright, Graham
Dunn, Robert


Brinton, Tim
Durant, Tony


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)






Eggar, Tim
Kennedy, Charles


Emery, Sir Peter
Key, Robert


Evennett, David
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Eyre, Sir Reginald
King, Rt Hon Tom


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Fallon, Michael
Knowles, Michael


Farr, Sir John
Lang, Ian


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Latham, Michael


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lawler, Geoffrey


Fletcher, Alexander
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Forman, Nigel
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Forth, Eric
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lightbown, David


Fox, Marcus
Lilley, Peter


Franks, Cecil
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Freeman, Roger
Lord, Michael


Freud, Clement
Luce, Richard


Fry, Peter
Lyell, Nicholas


Gale, Roger
McCrindle, Robert


Galley, Roy
Macfarlane, Neil


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Maclennan, Robert


Glyn, Dr Alan
Major, John


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Malins, Humfrey


Goodlad, Alastair
Marland, Paul


Gow, Ian
Marlow, Antony


Gower, Sir Raymond
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Grant, Sir Anthony
Maude, Hon Francis


Greenway, Harry
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gregory, Conal
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Griffiths, Sir Eldon
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Mellor, David


Grist, Ian
Merchant, Piers


Ground, Patrick
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Hancock, Mr. Michael
Moate, Roger


Hannam, John
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Moore, John


Harris, David
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Haselhurst, Alan
Moynihan, Hon C.


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Mudd, David


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Murphy, Christopher


Hawksley, Warren
Neale, Gerrard


Hayes, J.
Needham, Richard


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney
Nelson, Anthony


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Neubert, Michael


Heddle, John
Newton, Tony


Henderson, Barry
Nicholls, Patrick


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Norris, Steven


Hickmet, Richard
Onslow, Cranley


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Osborn, Sir John


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Ottaway, Richard


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Hordern, Sir Peter
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Howard, Michael
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Parris, Matthew


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abdgn)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Penhaligon, David


Howells, Geraint
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Pollock, Alexander


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Portillo, Michael


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hunter, Andrew
Powley, John


Irving, Charles
Price, Sir David


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Prior, Rt Hon James


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Jessel, Toby
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Johnston, Sir Russell
Raffan, Keith


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Rathbone, Tim


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Renton, Tim


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Rhodes James, Robert





Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Rifkind, Malcolm
Temple-Morris, Peter


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Terlezki, Stefan


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Roe, Mrs Marion
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Rost, Peter
Thornton, Malcolm


Rowe, Andrew
Thurnham, Peter


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Ryder, Richard
Tracey, Richard


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Trippier, David


Scott, Nicholas
Trotter, Neville


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shelton, William (Streatham)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Viggers, Peter


Shersby, Michael
Waddington, David


Silvester, Fred
Wainwright, R.


Sims, Roger
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Skeet, T. H. H.
Walden, George


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wall, Sir Patrick


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wallace, James


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Waller, Gary


Speed, Keith
Ward, John


Speller, Tony
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Spencer, Derek
Watson, John


Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Watts, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Squire, Robin
Wheeler, John


Stanbrook, Ivor
Whitfield, John


Stanley, John
Whitney, Raymond


Steel, Rt Hon David
Wiggin, Jerry


Steen, Anthony
Wolfson, Mark


Stern, Michael
Wood, Timothy


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Woodcock, Michael


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Yeo, Tim


Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stokes, John



Stradling Thomas, J.
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sumberg, David
Mr. Carol Mather and


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Mr. Donald Thompson.


Taylor, John (Solihull)



NOES


Abse, Leo
Conlan, Bernard


Anderson, Donald
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)


Ashton, Joe
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Corbett, Robin


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Corbyn, Jeremy


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cowans, Harry


Barnett, Guy
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Barron, Kevin
Craigen, J. M.


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bell, Stuart
Dalyell, Tam


Benn, Tony
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Bermingham, Gerald
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Bidwell, Sydney
Deakins, Eric


Blair, Anthony
Dixon, Donald


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Dobson, Frank


Boyes, Roland
Dormand, Jack


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dubs, Alfred


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Eadie, Alex


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Eastham, Ken


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)


Buchan, Norman
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Caborn, Richard
Ewing, Harry


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Faulds, Andrew


Campbell, Ian
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Flannery, Martin


Clarke, Thomas
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Clay, Robert
Forrester, John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Foster, Derek


Cohen, Harry
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Coleman, Donald
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald






Garrett, W. E.
O'Brien, William


George, Bruce
O'Neill, Martin


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Godman, Dr Norman
Park, George


Golding, John
Parry, Robert


Gould, Bryan
Patchett, Terry


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Pavitt, Laurie


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Pendry, Tom


Hardy, Peter
Pike, Peter


Harman, Ms Harriet
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Prescott, John


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Radice, Giles


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Randall, Stuart


Haynes, Frank
Redmond, M.


Heffer, Eric S.
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Home Robertson, John
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Hoyle, Douglas
Robertson, George


Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rogers, Allan


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Rooker, J. W.


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Rowlands, Ted


Janner, Hon Greville
Ryman, John


John, Brynmor
Sedgemore, Brian


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Sheerman, Barry


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Lambie, David
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Lamond, James
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Leighton, Ronald
Skinner, Dennis


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Litherland, Robert
Snape, Peter


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Soley, Clive


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Stott, Roger


McCartney, Hugh
Strang, Gavin


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Straw, Jack


McKelvey, William
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


McNamara, Kevin
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


McTaggart, Robert
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Madden, Max
Tinn, James


Marek, Dr John
Torney, Tom


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Wareing, Robert


Maxton, John
Weetch, Ken


Maynard, Miss Joan
White, James


Meacher, Michael
Wigley, Dafydd


Meadowcroft, Michael
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Michie, William
Winnick, David


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Woodall, Alec


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)



Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Tellers for the Noes:


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Mr. John McWilliam and


Nellist, David
Mr. Allen McKay.


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Question accordingly agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put the Questions on the remaining Lords amendments to be disposed of at that hour.

Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 3, line 38, at end insert—
() The Secretary of State shall before the abolition date lay before Parliament a report on the steps he will take to secure the full adoption by metropolitan district councils and the London borough councils of those facilities, services, and responsibilities for the protection and enjoyment of the countryside and areas for urban nature conservation which serve the continuing needs of the wider county areas and neighbouring populations.

Read a Second time.

Amendments made to Lords amendment, (a) in line 4, leave out 'metropolitan district councils and the London borough councils' and insert
'the councils to which functions are transferred by this section in Greater London or a metropolitan county'.

(b) in line 8 leave out 'the wider county areas' and insert 'Greater London or that county'.—[Mr. Patrick Jenkin.]

Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to

Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 4, before clause 7, insert the following new clause — Highway and Road Traffic functions
 . The Secretary of State shall by order taking effect on the abolition date make provision for the London Residuary Body to exercise the following functions relating to highways and road traffic in London to the extent and in the manner that such order shall provide—

(a) that the Body shall have a duty to prepare, in consultation with the borough councils, plans relating to highways and traffic in Greater London and the Body and borough councils shall have regard to such plans when exercising their statutory functions;
(b) that it shall be a duty of the Body to establish and maintain an organisation for the purpose of assembling, disseminating and keeping up to date, information on road traffic and other transport in Greater London and that the Body may commission such research and carry out such surveys as they think fit in fulfilment of this duty;
(c) that the Body shall have the functions of the highway authority under the Highways Act 1980 in relation to metropolitan roads;
(d) that not later than 1st April 1987 the Body shall, in consultation with the borough councils review the existing network of metropolitan roads and prepare and submit to the Secretary of State for his approval proposals for the revision of that network;
(e) that, as respects metropolitan roads, the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 shall apply to the Body (for the purposes of traffic management and parking control) as they now apply to the Greater London Council;
(f) that the Body shall be a local authority for the purposes of section 38 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 (power of local authorities as to giving of road safety information and training);
(g) that the Body shall be authorised, for the purpose of regulating traffic on metropolitan roads, to exercise the powers of a borough council under the said Act of 1984 as respects roads communicating with or adjacent to metropolitan roads in accordance with procedures to be prescribed by the Secretary of State;
(h) that, for the purposes of ensuring that the exercise by the London borough council of their powers under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 does not have any adverse effect on traffic on roads for which they are not the highway authority, the Body shall be given reserve powers similar to those given to the Secretary of State in Part 1 of Schedule 9 of the said Act;
(i) that the Body may exercise the powers of a London borough council or the Common Council under sections 6 and 9 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 for the purposes of prohibiting or restricting such use of heavy commercial vehicles as the Body considers expedient for preserving or improving the amenities of Greater London or some part or parts thereof;
(j) that the Body shall have a duty to control, manage, maintain and, where appropriate, develop and extend the system of urban traffic control through traffic light signals established by the Greater London Council;
(k) that the Body shall be a 'London Authority' within the meaning of section 50 of the London Regional Transport Act 1984 (travel concessions on journeys in or around Greater London);
(l) that the Body shall be able to assist, by way of grant or loan, the provision of transport services by a voluntary organisation for the benefit of the public or any class of persons."

Read a Second time.

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: I beg to move amendment (b) to the Lords amendment, in line 26, at end insert


'provided that, if such revision contains proposals for the designation of existing metropolitan roads as trunk roads, a public enquiry shall be held before any such road shall be so designated by the Secretary of State.'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: amendment (c) thereto, in line 26, at end insert
'and the Secretary of State shall not direct that a highway or proposed highway shall become a trunk road until he has considered the proposals submitted to him under this subsection.'.
Lords amendment No. 5, before clause 7, insert the following new clause—

Strategic Highway Functions in Metropolitan Counties

" . The Secretary of State shall by order taking effect on the abolition date make provision for the authority established by section 27 of this Act for each metropolitan county to exercise the following functions relating to highways and road traffic in that county to the extent and in the manner that such order shall provide—

(a) the functions of the highway authority under the Highways Act 1980 in relation to principal roads within the county;
(b) the functions of a county council and a highway authority for the purpose of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 in relation to principal roads within the county;
(c) issuing guidance as to the manner in which in relation to non principal roads the councils of metropolitan districts should exercise their powers under the 1984 Act, for the purpose of ensuring that the exercise by such councils of those traffic powers in relation to non principal roads does not have an adverse effect on traffic or any class of traffic using principal roads within the county or any traffic or class of traffic in any area other than the area of the district council, as the case may be;
(d) the functions relating to the construction and maintenance of bridges within the county which on that date are the responsibility of the highway authority;
(e) the functions contained in the Road Traffic Acts 1972 and 1974 in so far as the same relate to road safety within the county; and
(f) the collection, examination, analysis and dissemination of data required for the discharge of those functions."

Lords amendment No. 6, in page 4, line 3, leave out from first "to" to end of line 7 and insert
give effect to the transfer of functions relating to those matters—

(a) from the Greater London Council—

(i) in part to the London residuary body; and
(ii) in part to the London borough councils and the common council; and

(b) from the metropolitan county councils—

(i) in part to the metropolitan county strategic transportation authorities; and
(ii) in part to the metropolitan district councils."

Lords amendment No. 7, in page 4, line 13, leave out from second "the" to "and" in line 15 and insert "metropolitan county strategic transportation authorities and London residuary authority."

Lords amendment No. 8, in page 4, line 19, leave out from" metropolitan" to end of line 23 and insert
county strategic transportation authorities and London Residuary Body;

Lords amendment No. 24, in clause 27, in page 18, line 18, leave out "Passenger"

Lords amendment No. 25, in page 18, line 19, leave out "Transport" and insert "Strategic Transportation"

Lords amendment No. 26, in page 18, line 20, leave out "passenger"

Lords amendment No. 27, in page 18, line 20, leave out "transport" and insert "strategic transportation"

Lords amendment No. 28, in page 18, line 21, leave out "passenger"

Lords amendment No. 29, in page 18, line 21, leave out "transport" and insert "strategic transportation"

Lords amendment No. 30, in page 18, line 23, leave out "passenger"

Lords amendment No. 31, in page 18, line 23, leave out "transport" and insert "strategic transportation"

Lords amendment No. 32, in page 18, line 27, leave out "passenger"

Lords amendment No. 33, in page 18, line 27, leave out "transport" and insert "strategic transportation"

Lords amendment No. 40, in clause 38, in page 24, line 17, leave out "passenger"

Lords amendment No. 41, in page 24, line 18, leave out "transport" and insert "strategic transportation"

Mr. Hanley: These amendments deal with the vexed subject of the trunking of the south circular road. As many Members will know, this road is a scar through the middle of an otherwise beautiful constituency. The level of traffic on it is totally unnecessary for the local area, and the road itself was not designed to take the level of traffic now on it. It is an unnecessary road, following the completion of the M25, and is totally inadequate.
There is no point in trying to upgrade the road, because, following what I hope will be improvements after a possible west London relief road has been constructed, this part of the south circular road will be rendered redundant. The main argument of my constituents is that under this Bill the trunking procedures required by the Highways Act 1980 are being abolished in the case of the south circular road. One can have public inquiries at any time up to the effective date of the Bill and at any time after the effective date of the Bill, but on the date the Bill is passed the rights of my constituents with regard to trunking will be removed.
6.15 pm
One of the other worries of my constituents is that the south circular road just shovels in the problem front somewhere else. The headaches and miseries my constituents suffer as a result of the traffic, especially lorries, are totally unacceptable and before the road is trunked they would like to express their total opposition to the whole subject of trunking. As a result of the effective abolition of the Highways Act by this Bill, the rights of my constituents will expunged.
I am grateful to the Government for building the M25, which will take a considerable amount of lorry and car traffic out of the south circular road areas. But the M25 will take only approximately 18 to 20 per cent. of that volume. In any event it is not yet finished, and we do not know what will be its exact effect. The democratic rights of my constituents ought to be enshrined in public inquiries before trunking takes place.
I cannot speak too highly of the Minister of State for the way she has tried through public meetings and through letters and interviews with local journals to put her side of the story. She has assured my constitutents that there will be public inquiries prior to any road widening schemes. She also says that no road widening schemes are planned at the moment, but, without prejudice to the assessment studies being carried out at the moment, if there is any widening later there will be public inquiries.
My constituents are somewhat jaundiced about Government assurances following the abolition of the 275,000 aircraft movement limit at Heathrow recently,


and therefore wish to have the opportunity of a public inquiry so that the inspector can properly hear the views of people in this area.
One of the things my hon. Friend the Minister does not fully appreciate, but I believe that her officals do, is that there is a basic difference between public inquiries into trunking proposals and public inquiries set up for road widening proposals following this legislation.
A trunk road inquiry differs substantially from an inquiry into a local authority road proposal, because whereas a local authority requires a compulsory purchase order and then a side road order, line orders are not made for local authority roads. Unlike a trunk road, planning permission is required for the construction of a new road by a local authority and where an inquiry is needed into the refusal of planning permission or a called-in application for a new road it will normally be held concurrently with the inquiries into the CPO and the SRO.
The promoting local authority at a public inquiry will be required to prove its case up to the hilt. Before objections are considered it will have to call evidence establishing the need for the road and justifying the scheme as being the best way of meeting that need. By contrast—and this is where constitutionally the people of Richmond are getting a raw deal—the purpose of a trunk road inquiry is not to enable the Secretary of State's case for building the road to be tested in public, but to inform the Secretary of State of the weight and nature of objections to the scheme. The key tasks of the inspector are to take account of objections from people affected by the proposals, to report on those objections and to make recommendations on the proposals. But perhaps the most controversial aspect of road trunk inquiries is that questions on Government policy are outside their scope. The procedural rules specifically require the inspector to disallow any questions which in his opinion are directed to the merits of Government policy. We believe that any inquiry before trunking would give full protection to my constituents. They demand that right.
I can do no better than quote some of the demands made by an organisation called Richmond Residents Against the A205 Trunking. That group has acted non-politically and in a completely non-partisan way. It has worked hard to try to bring to public attention the constitutional disaster that trunking under the Bill produces. I agree with every statement that the organisation makes. It stated:
We want to cross the main road with no more difficulty than now. We do not want to have to use bridges and tunnels. We want to be able to take our children to school and to shop without being buffeted by vehicles of all sizes or weights. We do not want pavements narrowed in the shopping areas. We want to be able to shop freely on both sides of the road.
Communities are otherwise destroyed.
We do not want our main road run by a Whitehall department that sees it as a through route to somewhere else, attracting traffic through our constituency. We want the Government to accept any changes made by the House of Lords aimed at keeping London's roads under London control.
The organisation wants a public inquiry.
My final worry is that, even if we had a public inquiry after the road had been trunked and were able to put forward the environmental matters that we believe should be considered with regard to any widening proposals of the south circular road, an inspector might have to resort to the Trunk Roads Act 1936, which describes trunk roads as:

the principal roads in Great Britain which constitute the national system of routes for through traffic".
In the face of that definition, an inspector would have to say, "I hear the environmental considerations put forward by the local community but, because it is a trunk road, in the national interest I shall order it to be widened." Our ability to complain has been eroded by the Bill.

The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I understand the worries of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), because he has expressed them time and again, as is his right. While I fully agree that conditions on the south circular road are completely unsatisfactory and have every sympathy with those who live, work and shop nearby, the road cannot be altered without a public inquiry. The distinctions that he drew between a local road inquiry and a trunk road inquiry are theoretical. Government policy will always be discussed at a trunk road inquiry. There has never been one where that has not occurred. In practice, therefore, the Secretary of State for Transport must justify his case fully. I cannot accept what my hon. Friend was saying about the difference between the two types of inquiry.
Amendments (b) and (c) which my hon. Friend has tabled have problems. First, amendment (b) is incompatible with the power contained in schedule 4 for the trunking of some metropolitan roads on abolition date. Amendment (c) would stop any trunking order anywhere in the country between now and April 1987 at the earliest, because, as my hon. Friend is aware, the power to trunk contained in schedule 4 has been debated and approved by both Houses.

Mr. Hanley: I tabled amendment (b), not (c), which is in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

Mrs. Chalker: I apologise, but the same applies, whoever tabled the amendment.

Mr. Peter Snape: The hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) spoke to amendment (c), not (b).

Mrs. Chalker: I thought that I heard that mentioned before. I am asking the House to resist amendments (b) and (c), for the reasons that I have given. Amendment (c) would stop any trunking order anywhere in the country between now and April 1987 at the earliest. Given the correspondence which I frequently receive in which I am asked to trunk some roads, that would be in no one's interests.
We have debated the power to trunk contained in schedule 4, and it has been approved by both Houses of Parliament. Any proposals to trunk roads in London after abolition date would have to follow the procedures laid down in the Highways Act 1980. In other words, even if the residuary body conducted a review of metropolitan roads for 1987, any trunking proposals would still be subject to the provisions of the Highways Act 1980.
My hon. Friend is aware, and I repeat, that the ownership of GLC roads will be transferred to the appropriate successor authorities at abolition date. I resist amendment (b) because if we were to use the powers contained in the Highways Act 1980 there would be a long period of uncertainty, not just about the A205 in my hon. Friend's constituency, but about all the other parcels of land in the metropolis covered by that provision. It would


impose upon local ratepayers the cost of maintaining those major roads in the meantime. I do not believe that that is fair.
It is right for me and the Government to make clear what the transfer of ownership at abolition will mean. Similar transfers of ownership have been made through legislation before—in 1936, 1946 and in 1963 when the GLC was established.
My hon. Friend asked about improvements. He said, "When?" I say, "if'. While we are seeking to improve the environment along the south circular road and in other places, there is no certainty that any of the matters which he and his constituents fear will occur. As he correctly said, we have no plans to improve the road. If there were any proposals to improve the road, they would all follow the normal procedure of public consultation and inquiry, and the full provisions of the Highways Act 1980 would bear upon the handling of the improvement proposals. The power contained in schedule 4 gives the Department no authority to carry out improvements. I hope that that is clear once and for all.
I repeat what we said in Committee, on Report and in the other place, that we shall not revive the ringway road and motorway box ideas. Those plans are long since dead and buried. Those who say that there will be concrete in various places across London which today are the city's lungs are merely scaremongering. They have been financed through the GLC to act in that way.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: My hon. Friend said that there are no plans to revive the motorway box around London. Will she remind herself and others that the originator of the motorway box idea was the Labour-controlled LCC and not the Conservative party?

Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend is correct. Many of those living in the area which would have been affected by the proposal were devoutly opposed to it then, and we have never changed our position.

Mr. Tony Banks: Why was the Conservative administration at county hall between 1971 and 1973 so much in favour of the motorway box?

Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman knows that not every member of his party agrees council to council. I should have been surprised if after public inquiries those plans had then gone ahead. I am speaking for a large number of people, of whom I am one, living in the area. When the LCC proposed those plans, we knew what would happen if they were allowed to proceed. There are no proposals for a ringway road and a motorway box.
Amendment No. 4 seeks to transfer the GLC highway and financial responsibility to the London residuary body. I sympathise with some of the objectives of the clause, but it is unworkable and inconsistent. Perhaps I can tell the House why it is inconsistent with the general policy underlined in the Bill. The clause would retain a three-tier structure for highway responsibilities in London. It would introduce a new three-tier structure for traffic responsibilities, and it would run counter to overall policy on streamlining embodied in the Bill. It would greatly reduce — perhaps even completely do away with — those benefits which we expect from that streamlining. The residuary body is not a satisfactory body to run these responsibilities. The new clause envisages the GLC's

highway and traffic responsibility for metropolitan roads going to the residuary body, and that would be unsatisfactory, because it is only a temporary organisation for major functions such as highways and traffic, because they are permanent functions, and because the residuary body is only an appointed body.
6.30 pm
Both Houses have rejected amendments to establish directly or indirectly elected authorities for metropolitan roads, and therefore metropolitan roads would go to the boroughs, when the residuary body would be wound up. The boroughs are competent to take on the responsibilities for these roads and they are suitable authorities to do so. They are also directly elected. The new clauses are unworkable because they are completely inimical to sensible transport planning for London.
It is true that the residuary body is given certain responsibilities, but these are not set within the wider framework of traffic and highway or London-wide planning duties. Even with the amendments to the Bill which the House has passed tonight, that would not be so. The provisions envisage, in certain cases, dual responsibility for traffic management for the same roads between the residuary body and the boroughs, and I see that as a recipe for trouble indeed. They also create duplication of the reserve powers, with both the Secretary of State and the residuary body having some, but there is no clear division of responsibility for exercising them. They also envisage dual responsibility for prohibiting or restricting the use of lorries, but not for making it clear whether the borough or the residuary body has the final say. They also give the residuary body powers to make grants to any group, as its fancy takes it—goodness knows what they might be—but they do not establish the duties or the systems of accountability in relation to such grants.
The clause does not make proper financial provision for the exercise of highway and traffic functions proposed for the residuary bodies. These are major flaws and they are not the only ones. It is not a matter of tinkering to put these matters right. If the House were to agree with the amendment, substantial parts of the Bill would require major revision. This is not justified when the residuary body is only temporary and when appropriate and competent alternative authorities stand ready and are qualified to take on the responsibilities.
We recognise the need to maintain expert teams, specialist equipment and information gathering. We have always recognised that from the earliest planning days of the Bill. One of the most important things is to maintain the UTC system in London. That is exactly why there is reserve power in schedule 5. We recognise the importance of maintaining data collection and analysis, including accident statistics. We are already discussing with the boroughs how best to maintain the systems and we see the residuary body as providing a home for such systems and staff until permanent arrangements are settled with the boroughs. We do not need a separate strategic body, because our proposals make effective provision for handling the London-wide issues. I can go through those in detail, but the House knows full well what they are.

Sir Philip Goodhart: My hon. Friend is touching on important matters of great interest to our


constituents. Can she give any assurance that these matters, when they pass to the boroughs and also to her own Department, will be regularly debated by the House?

Mrs. Chalker: In so far as the boroughs have responsibility, these matters will be debated in the council chambers of those boroughs, but in so far as the Department has responsibility, just like any other responsibilities where the Department is answerable, we shall be answerable in the House. That is exactly the way it should be.
We are against the policy embodied in the new clause proposed by amendment No. 4 because the streamlining functions are there and we do not want duplication of administration and costs. The residuary body is not appropriate for these functions because it is only temporary and is only appointed. The detailed provisions are unworkable, wholly inadequate and, as I have said, would require major revision to remedy the defects. In any case, the highway and traffic responsibilities proposed to be transferred to the boroughs are primarily local in nature and are best handled at local borough level. The wider issues can be handled elsewhere where necessary. Those are the suitable arrangements about which I spoke.
The Government ask the House to disagree with the Lords amendment on the situation in the metropolitan county council areas because the clause also makes the arrangements proposed unworkable. It is particularly wrong to introduce into the metropolitan counties the three-tier structure of highway authorities which has already proved unsatisfactory in London. The strategic transportation authority was given a whole host of extra jobs to be done which should best be done at district level, such as traffic management guidance, taking over construction and maintenance of highway bridges, road safety and data collection—all things which can be done adequately at district level.
The provisions of the clause are attractive only to those who believe that everything should be integrated. There is scope in the clause for regiments of staff to produce plans to co-ordinate public transport and traffic across the metropolitan counties, but the real needs of those districts are very different. Road systems in the metropolitan counties consist of interlinking networks of principal and other roads. Almost every journey involves travel on a principal and other road. It is wrong to have separate highways and traffic management responsibilities. Opponents of abolition have made much of the cross-boundary problems, but under the clause district councils would have to consult not only their neighbouring districts, which they should do anyway, but the joint authority, about almost every traffic problem, even down to double yellow lines.
There is no need for a further tier of highway and traffic authorities in the metropolitan areas, and the district councils will talk to each other, as they do already, about the small proportion of highways and traffic management work which requires their co-operation. I do not believe that the great city authorities, like Coventry or Leeds, cannot manage their roads and traffic in sensible co-operation with neighbouring districts.

Mr. Tony Banks: They have 33 boroughs.

Mrs. Chalker: Nor do I believe that the boroughs cannot manage. They are highway authorities already and

co-operate across boundaries, as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), the chairman of the GLC, knows well.

Mr. Banks: Why is the Minister trunking the roads?

Mrs. Chalker: My point about the roads in the metropolitan county council areas is this. We understand that some traffic problems and some road problems need to be considered over a wider district, and that is true of the boundaries of any local authority anywhere in the country. At professional level authorities have good working relationships and joint working arrangements are well precedented, so while I am confident that sensible co-operation will usually prevail, as I have said before, from time to time, just as between other unconnected authorities, problems will arise. For this reason the original provisions provide a framework within which those districts can operate to ensure that wider considerations are properly taken into account.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister has just made the point that in most counties there is one authority. That is because in most counties the travel-to-work area is within one shire county boundary. Does she accept that some at least of the metropolitan areas, archetypically Merseyside, have at present a county area which encompasses one travel-to-work area? Therefore, for example, people do not suddenly cross the Wirral boundary, the Sefton boundary or the Knowsley boundary to Liverpool. They go in and out within that county, and for that county, if not for anybody else, to have no strategic authority higher than district level authority goes against all the logic and all travel patterns and movements.

Mrs. Chalker: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is not quite right. The travel-to-work area in my region of Merseyside happens to be Wirral and Chester. Chester is in the Cheshire county council area and Wirral remains for a few months yet in Merseyside. Therefore, we continually cross between two county areas with no difficulty and good co-operation. However, that co-operation happens at local level. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that people observe where the boundary is most of the time, he is in difficulty, because, unlike the French, we do not have signs showing when one is going into or leaving an area.
Schedule 5 contains powers for the Secretary of State to issue guidance to local authorities on traffic management. If the guidance is disregarded, with the likelihood of adverse consequences for a wider area, then, but only in that case, would the Secretary of State intervene if he thought it necessary. Similarly, occasion other local authorities object to a traffic scheme affecting their areas, and if objections cannot be resolved the Secretary of State will, subject to consultation, be able to determine the issue.
One of the most important area-wide traffic management task is the operation of the urban traffic control systems. The Government are fully committed to ensuring continuity in London and the metropolitan counties, and the Bill provides reserve powers for that. If the districts are unable to reach a satisfactory agreement, the Secretary of State can take over such responsibilities. I do not believe that it will be necessary for the Secretary of State to do so, because I believe that in order to carry out their new functions districts will need specialist staff


and facilities from the metropolitan county council. A Government amendment from the other place, which we shall consider later, requires residuary bodies to consult successor bodies about likely needs. The residuary bodies can then take over special manpower facilities, and that will ensure a smooth transition on abolition day.
It is time for districts to get down to considering the ways in which they will meet their highway and traffic responsibilities. They are ready to do so. They do not need strategic authorities, which would simply perpetuate some of the worst features of the metropolitan county councils, and even add to them. That would not be a recipe for improved conditions. Therefore, I hope that the House will disagree with Lords amendment No. 5 as well.

Mr. Snape: I found the Minister's explanation singularly unconvincing, and I think that my hon. Friends will agree. I am the first to concede that the hon. Lady normally deals well with her brief. This was one of the rare occasions on which I have seen her reading the whole brief through from beginning to end.

Mr. Corbyn: Maybe she does not believe in it.

Mr. Snape: I agree with my hon. Friend. I was just about to say that I do not think the Minister believed a word of her brief. She did not appear to convince too many of her hon. Friends, but then again she does not have to. As we saw in Committee, those Tory Members who bother to say anything about the legislation are few and far between, and those who do not bother to say anything vote for the Government anyway, so the Minister does not have too much to worry about.
It will be a sad day for the House when this undemocratic legislation goes through virtually on the nod, as it will by midnight tonight. It will destroy a tier of local government that, whatever its faults over the past 10 years, has proved, particularly in traffic functions, to have been exceedingly valuable and done much good work. The Minister's unconvincing explanation was an illustration of the fact that what the Government are doing tonight they are doing as a result of a Prime Ministerial afterthought in the drafting of the 1983 general election manifesto.
The Government are carrying through abolition without any consideration of the invevitable chaos that will follow when it will fall to those who are at present doing this work in local government to try to make some sort of order out of the chaos — they will try, as they always do. I shall come to the point made by the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) in a moment.
6.45 pm
Lords amendment No. 4 deals specifically with London. During the passage of the Bill through the other place, numerous amendments were tabled with the aim of transferring the strategic highway traffic problems to an appropriate single authority to replace the GLC. Directly and indirectly elected bodies were proposed, with obvious local democratic advantages, as well as the London residuary body. In the many hours of debate on this important issue, cogent arguments from both sides of the other place overwhelmingly supported the need for London-wide co-ordination and for integrated solutions to London's complex problems.
Integrated solutions are necessary even though, these days, the Minister sneers at such solutions. Not long ago

she was a fervent and passionate advocate of them. She now has to follow a doctrine, but most people, including a majority of the other place, feel that integration for traffic functions is necessary. The Minister may have picked up her boss's habit of sneering at the word "integration", but nevertheless a majority of her party in the other place felt that integration of these functions was called for, and voted for it.
The way that the Minister read out her brief shows that perhaps she should spend some time in private discussons — we shall not embarrass her by urging her to make them public — with some of her political colleagues at the end of the Corridor, because on this occasion they have proved to be more progressive than she is. She normally likes to be thought of as the progressive, warm and humane voice of the Department of Transport and it must be a real problem for her to have to come to the House to read a brief that was more suitable for the abrasive tone of her boss the Secretary of State for Transport.
The Minister has failed to produce any sound arguments to explain how two Departments — [Interruption.] The hon. Lady has a patronising air. I know that she loves to see herself as the Marjorie Proops of the Government Front Bench. She dispenses advice such as fasten seat belts, do not drink too much, do not be naughty. That is her general philosophy. Tonight she has a brief that does not enable her to do that. She has to read something saying that integration and all the things in which she used to believe, and which she used warmly to endorse and recommend to the nation, if they would take the trouble to listen, are all in the past. These days, to keep her job, she has to prove that she is just as nasty, hard-line and Right wing as the Secretary of State for Transport.
The hon. Lady dismissed all the arguments for integration and for a London-wide authority for highways. The fact that she has said that it will not work does not make it so. The majority of the other place, and therefore the majority of the Conservatives in the other place, has decided that it will. For once, we have to believe it.

Mr. Corbyn: Does my hon. Friend agree that the performance of the Department of Transport in redirecting traffic from the M1 into traffic jams elsewhere makes it admirably suited to run every traffic scheme throughout London and the metropolitan counties?

Mr. Snape: We had exchanges on this point as recently as last Monday. Once again, when the Minister's inherent goodness was called in question by Labour Members, she stamped her foot and said that such criticism was terribly unfair. However, I do not wish to debate the M1 motorway now.
It is for the Minister of State to convince her hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes that she is not about to turn his constituency into a motorway. I do not know how convincing she was; no hon. Member will know until the hon. Gentleman comes to a decision at the end of the debate. However, I found the Minister of State's reply to her hon. Friend singularly unconvincing. It was as unconvincing as the rest of her speech.
The other place believes that there are considerable advantages in the amendment that the Government are seeking to remove. I am not allowed to refer directly to what was said in the other place, and I would not dream of doing so, but it is possible to paraphrase what was said by those Conservative Members of the other place who


participated in the debate. With one exception, the Government had no supporters. Some of the speeches should leave the Minister of State in no doubt about the lack of support that their proposals command and about the widespread concern that is felt in both Houses about their inherently undemocratic nature.
The Opposition believe that there are numerous advantages in amendment No. 4. The advantages that were incorporated by the other place mean that the substantial though negative powers of the Secretary of State have been removed. The old fashioned Conservative party would have supported their removal. It professed not to like over-centralisation. If Conservative Members believe that the Secretary of State is hardly the person to leave in charge of a whelk stall on a wet Whit Monday, never mind being in charge of London's strategic highways and planning functions, they ought so to indicate when they have the opportunity to vote.
Amendment No. 4 retains economies of scale arising from the handling of large-scale programmes. The Minister of State was singularly unconvincing about the fragmentation of these functions if the Lords amendment is rejected. The amendment retains a degree of centralised leadership regarding the assessment of priorities and there would be central funding of projects where that is most needed. Is there to be competition between the boroughs? That would mean that those who shouted the loudest, or put in their bids first, would get the financial wherewithal to carry out their role, instead of sensible, centralised planning for highways.
The amendment would provide the body concerned with sufficient breadth and a sufficiently large budget to sustain specialist teams with the computer back up and data collection systems that were referred to in Committee. Few hon. Members who heard the Committee debate would doubt the need for capital-wide planning for these functions.
As for amendment No. 5, the Government were found to have few friends in the other place for their metropolitan county council proposals. The other place made it clear, to say the least, that it was very unhappy about the Government's proposals, particularly about the proposal to devolve highway and traffic functions to district councils. Lord Molson referred to the unsatisfactory nature of the Government's proposals. Although the Minister of State is pulling a face at me for referring to Lord Molson, I think that it is in order for me to mention in passing what he said. Let me try the Earl of Cranbrook on the hon. Lady. He was the Chairman of the Select Committee which had some harsh words to say about the Government's proposals. It is no use for the Minister of State to hide her face and whisper. If she is cross with the more senior members of her party in the other place, that is a matter for her. The Earl of Cranbrook referred to bridge and highway design, major road schemes, urban traffic control, data gathering and travel demand forecasting and said that all such matters ought to be dealt with by a strategic transport authority.
It is significant that the Government's proposals for the metropolitan county councils have been found to be completely unsatisfactory. The Select Committee of another place has also published a report on the Government's proposals. I assume that a majority of

Conservative party members serve upon it. The noble Earl to whom I have referred is the Chairman of that Committee and at column 62 of the Select Committee's report he said:
voluntary joint committees appear unlikely to be to resolve the inevitable policy conflicts, or lead authorities to resolve the conflict between their service role and their policy interests.
The report then said that a more practical option would be a joint authority. It is remarkable when the, in our view, undemocratially appointed members of another place lecture an elected Conservative Government about local democracy. If somebody had said to me a decade or so ago that this would happen, I should have expressed great surprise. The Government have no friends for these proposals.
Amendment (b) was moved by the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes. It is a wondrous thing, having the smallest Conservative majority in England—

Mr. Hanley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Snape: No, I have not finished yet. The hon. Gentleman had a fairly good run. I think that I am on fairly safe ground if I say that he has the smallest Conservative majority in any London constituency. The hon. Gentleman appeared on television, which gave him the opportunity to explain the difficulties that his Richmond constituents will face if the Government's proposals are accepted. I ask again: Has the Minister of State fully satisfied her hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes? If so, he will let the House know, but I shall be surprised if he has been satisfied by the Minister of State's explanation. She said that if the powers contained in the Highways Act were used, her hon. Friend's constituents would face long periods of uncertainty. That was the Minister of State's phrase; I wrote it down.
I hope that the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes will agree with me that uncertainty is exactly what his constituents are facing now. One of the reasons why they have written to him is to demonstrate that they are already suffering because of the long period of uncertainty caused by the Government's proposals. If the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes is satisfied by the Minister of State's explanation, he will say so, but, if not, he will not complain if I exploit that fact. He has had a good run this evening, even though there was insufficient time to debate the matter in Committee because of the appalling, undemocratic guillotine procedure to which the Government have had to resort to get the legislation through this House.
If, like me, the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes is denounced for scaremongering — that is what the Minister of State will say about him if he refuses to accept her explanation — he will have to live with it. Some of us will make sure that the Minister's comments receive fairly wide circulation not only in the hon. Gentleman's constituency but in the other parts of London where people are worried about these proposals.
7 pm
The author of the Bill — the Secretary of State for the Environment — is not here. The man who builds the Boeing 747 aircraft has to fly one, but the right hon. Gentleman has disappeared. The Bill's pilot — the Minister for Local Government — sits beside the Minister of State, Department of Transport. The right hon. Gentleman has had a fairly good run during the Bill's


passage. In his humorous way, he has convinced many of his colleagues that the Bill's proposals are totally innocuous.

Mr. Corbyn: He has frightened them.

Mr. Snape: He has persuaded some and frightened others. Normally, he tries not to be too frightening. If there were ever two strong favourites for the political guillotine in October, it is the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Transport, although the Secretary of State for Transport appears to have been temporarily reprieved. If the Minister for Local Government fulfils his ambitions and enters the Cabinet in October, it will, no doubt, be seen as a suitable reward for this appalling legislation. Like the Minister of State, the right hon. Gentleman knows that he would not reject this proposal if he were really master of his own Department—

Mr. Jack Straw: Or master of his own ambitions.

Mr. Snape: —or master of his own ambitions, as my hon. Friend has reminded me.
I admire the Minister's sartorial elegance. His tie reminds me of a British Rail adverisement about black dots and red dots. In his case, the red dots are all the lies that have been told during the past 12 months or so about expenditure in local government and the democratic nature of the Bill's proposals. The black dots are some of the promises that have been made during the passage of the legislation, which will prove to be as worthless as other Government promises. Although the right hon. Gentleman might well receive his reward in October, it is likely to be short-lived. In the opinion of everyone concerned with the functions of local government, he has done local government no service.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: Whilst I agree with the principle of abolition and the Bill's main provisions, I believe it right to consider whether there are better ways of preserving some local centres of great excellence. My constituency, which is on the boundary of west Yorkshire and north Yorkshire, falls within Leeds and the urban traffic control area of the west Yorkshire metropolitan county council. I accept the arguments that have been advanced by my hon. Friend the Minister of State that an area on the border of different traffic authorities — the problem is exacerbated in my constituency as the Al goes through the middle of it — emphasises the importance of consultation and of working together. Nevertheless, I am concerned that the centre of excellence represented by west Yorkshire's urban traffic control system should be effectively preserved.
The system in west Yorkshire is one of the most advanced in this country, if not in the world. It is highly integrated and inter-active between a complementary range of services. Many of its ideas for road construction and embankments are especially innovative. The system is a considerable source of pride to the people of west Yorkshire.
It is possible for my hon. Friend the Minister of State to say that, with such a centralised system, a lead authority such as Leeds where the central computer is situated could be an effective way of running the system. However, when dealing with urban traffic control a number of priorities have to be balanced and local jealousies between different

district authorities might preclude the effective working of the system, particularly if the lead authority is especially large.
How will the Government ensure that that system is not broken up if the district authorities are not able to agree?

Mrs. Chalker: The expertise of the west Yorkshire team is very impressive. I have seen the team in operation. It is right that we should safeguard that expertise. That is where the residuary body can supply the temporary home. The officers of the west Yorkshire county council have said that they believe that they have a role to play. They have formed a company and could use their expertise as a privately run centre of expertise on offer to all districts in the area. That is exactly what we would expect them to do. The co-ordinating committees would have the duty to consider joint arrangements.

Mr. Batiste: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment.
I am especially worried about the time scale on which change will occur. The people who work for the urban traffic control system in west Yorkshire have very marketable skills. Many of them have been approached by consultants and other companies outside the public sector seeking to snap up their services. These people are highly motivated. They want to work within west Yorkshire's integrated system. Obviously, if they see an uncertain future, they may be tempted by some of the offers. Indeed, I understand that some have already gone to work elsewhere.
I am seeking a clear commitment from the Government that, if the district authorities are unable to co-operate to preserve the urban traffic control system in west Yorkshire, they will step in and ensure that this centre of excellence, which is so highly prized by the people of the area, is retained. The Lords amendment provides one means of doing this. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State can give sufficiently firm assurances of another.

Mr. Simon Hughes: We are discussing one of the principal parts of the Bill. The other place took the view that transport planning should be "integrated" with the running of transport services. Two large amendments are being considered — the first concerns London and the second concerns the metropolitan authorities. I do not think that the Minister of State admits to understanding why we are so keen to persuade her that it would be better to agree with the Lords, so I shall remind her.
No one would say from choice that a body called the "London residuary body", which is a collective of people appointed by the Secretary of State, is the best organisation to take on the co-ordinated planning functions of transport in London. There are not many options available if the Government get rid of a directly elected strategic authority—the option of no co-ordinating body, or the option of something that is better than nothing.
The measure is strongly supported because many people, including most experts who have given evidence, would rather have a co-ordinating body that can consider the problems of London traffic and strategy as a whole. They do not want it to be a Minister.
To give a practical example, outside my street door there is a small road with a wall beyond it, and on the other side of the wall is a large open space that could well become a main road. I would far rather that the people


making decisions about what happens to that space, and whether it ever becomes a through road from the Bricklayers Arms down to Woolwich or anywhere else, were a group of non-elected people with special responsibility for all London. I would prefer that body — which could eventually, because it might survive a bit longer than the Government, be converted back into a group of elected representatives — to make the decision rather than that the Secretary of State did. I trust a group of people, and preferably a group of elected people, far more than I trust the Secretary of State to make a decision about the strategic planning of roads in London and what should travel on them.

Mr. Corbyn: Do I understand that the Liberal party is now in favour of quangos rather than directly elected authorities to look after planning in London, or is the hon. Gentleman in favour of centralising power? I think that the country needs to know, and the SDP needs to be told.

Mr. Hughes: The SDP and the Liberal party will tell the hon. Gentleman — he now knows it because he has heard it often — that we entered into the debate on the Bill knowing our policy for London and not having to announce it this morning, as did the Leader of the GLC on the radio and elsewhere. Our policy has always been that London needs a regional authority directly elected which should cover these powers and many others. The new super-expanded GLC, for which the present GLC chairman and others will be fighting, is a concept that they have adopted from us, and we have been arguing it for a long time. I am sorry they are so slow at reaching the right conclusion, but that is not unusual. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about quangos?"] We do not want a quango, but we do not want the Secretary of State deciding what should happen in London transport in strategic planning terms.
As regards outside London, according to the amendment, the strategic highway functions which are now governed by the county councils should go to the passenger transport authority which is being set up under the Bill. In the course of debates, it has become clear that some very popular services are being produced by local government in the metropolitan counties. The Tyne and Wear Metro service is one, the public transport service in south Yorkshire is another. They are popular because they are good services, well used, and cheap and because expertise is co-ordinated in running them and in planning for the future. They link the number of people who want to use transport with the transport provided, be it roads or rail lines.
I ask the Minister to say that it is appropriate, as we proposed in the other place, to accept that in the metropolitan areas we, too, co-ordinate to avoid this muddle. The Government are asking us to believe that, in a series of discussions, the districts can agree on some of the most controversial issues. Such issues cannot be reconciled if one district believes that there should be a road while the other does not, and the two districts are adjacent.
I wish to comment on the amendment of the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley). He has been under a lot of pressure from his constituents, quite rightly. We all know the effect of a power which allows the Secretary of State to make decisions about the trunking of roads in London and all the implications on the hon.
Gentleman's constituents and all the people who live along the south circular road, in the borough of Southwark and beyond of trunking in London. Given the Minister's intention that many roads like the south circular will be trunked, the result will be roads which have more traffic, more disruption and more environmental problems for the people who live and work alongside them.
The amendment is a modest one, and I am surprised that the Minister does not accept that the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes needs her support. However hard the hon. Gentleman will have tried, he will have had to tell his constituents that I and others have argued the case that there ought to be a public inquiry before roads in London are trunked, but it fell on deaf ears — Tory deaf ears, Tory Government deaf ears and even the deaf ears of the Minister, who has her home not all that far from the south circular.
If the Government do not think again, the Lords may well stand by what they said last time and the Government may risk losing the Bill as a whole instead of enacting it with amendments that come from sane and sanguine proposals made by people who are trying to improve an appalling piece of legislation.

Mr. W. Benyon: The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is not alone in being worried about the accumulation of power to the Secretary of State which is the basis of the matters that we are now discussing. Due to a quirk of our procedure, amendment (a) tabled by the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) cannot be discussed in this section because it has already been debated.
There are obviously grave shortcomings about the residuary body for London. I am concerned about Lords amendment No. 4 only, and not about the other metropolitan counties. I had hoped that the Government would say that, because the other place has looked at the matter carefully, considered the various implications of what is proposed and decided that there should be a Londonwide body to carry out these functions, they would pay respect to that and, if we do not like the residuary body, would find some other way of operating this overall power.
7.15 pm
As someone who has had a certain amount of experience of local government at county and district level, I cannot see how matters will work out in practice when we get down to the nitty-gritty of planning roads in London in future with the various traffic aspects involved, even if it is only a system of traffic lights. I cannot see how that will be worked voluntarily by the boroughs.
The power going to the Secretary of State will be considerable, and can be exercised only with an increased number of staff. I know this is rather like twice cooked meat — we have been round this course so often in the past in relation to the Bill. It is a question of how one views local government and forms one's ideas on that basis. None the less, I think it is sad that the Government are to resist the Lords amendment.

Mr. Wareing: The need for an integrated countywide authority is very great in an area like Merseyside. I am surprised that the Minister does not recognise the true needs of Merseyside and how these are likely to be jeopardised if the Bill—and particularly this part of it — is enacted.
On Merseyside, the principal road network takes up 10 per cent. of the total network in the area. Although the principal roads represent only 10 per cent., they carry 50 per cent. of the traffic. Most of the business traffic and heavy goods vehicles cross the boundaries between the various districts. Fifty per cent. of car drivers commute across district boundaries in Merseyside. I cannot accept the point that the Minister made in reply to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). The travel-to-work area for most of those people who live in the built-up parts of the Wirral, the old constituency of Wallasey and Birkenhead is undoubtedly across the river Mersey into the rest of the conurbation, and particularly into Liverpool.
If one looks beyond the highways, one finds that 80 per cent. of traffic signals on Merseyside are under central computerised control. Therefore, a countywide operation is essential, for which the districts are not automatically prepared. Urban traffic control cannot be managed in isolation from all the other traffic and highway functions such as the collection and analysis of data traffic management, road improvements and route signing, all of which are closely bound up with urban traffic control.
There are many specialist services which must be shared for economic reasons. It is clear that they are too costly to duplicate. I cannot conceive that Sefton, the Wirral, Liverpool, St. Helens and Knowsley will be able to provide services to provide urban traffic control, research and development, bridge inspection and maintenance, engineering laboratories, geo-techncial surveys and materials testing and development. All these services are highly costly.
It can be argued that it is possible for such services to be provided by someone else, and I think that the Government have someone else in mind. They are not concerned with replacing one democratic countywide authority with another such body, which might be elected indirectly by the people of Merseyside through their district councils. All the evidence would seem to point in the other direction. The authority that the Government have in mind is the Secretary of State for Transport. Heaven help us if he were to take control. One example of his control is the shambles of the Transport Bill that is before Parliament.
Districts do not necessarily have coincidental interests. There may be many conflicts between district councils over the need to provide, maintain or restore certain roadways. A district council could downgrade a vital strategic route either explicitly or by neglect at the expense of essential traffic that is generated elsewhere.
The real reason for the introduction of the Bill, and the reason why no adequate democratically elected control of authorities is envisaged within it, is that the Government dislike the present political control of the metropolitan counties. That is the sole reason for the Bill being before us. If Merseyside were run by the Conservative party, for example, the Bill would not be with us.
If the Minister of State is suggesting that the district councils will be able to afford to provide the services and functions that we are discussing, I believe that she is quite wrong. New clause 8 would forestall the real danger of continuing central Government encroachment on local responsibility for principal roads. That is why the House should approve it. It obviates the need for the reserve powers that the original Bill sought to give the Secretary of State.
There are those who say that the Secretaries of State for Transport and for the Environment genuinely envisage the district councils having more power over highways, that they are democratically elected and that there is nothing sinister about the Bill. A real sign of the Department of Transport's intentions on strategic highway issues is to be found in a guidance note that the Department issued recently to district councils to assist them in planning for their enhanced transport responsibilities. The existing strategic functions of the metropolitan county councils is scarcely mentioned and there is no reference to the relevant manuals and advice notes. Against that background, and with the reserve powers that are contained in the Bill being directed specifically at matters of more than local significance, it seems that the Department rather than the districts will be the de facto highway authority for principal roads under the Bill's original provisions.
A provision for a countywide highway authority would impede the covert increase in Government power and responsibility. That is why new clause 8 is essential even to support the Government's argument, which I do not think they believe in themselves, that there must be co-operation between the districts to obtain a countywide integrated highway system.
I invite the Government to issue a new guidance note. I suggest that they refer to the competent manuals on the subject. Let them ensure that there is democratic control and that the expertise of the teams of workers in areas such as Merseyside is maintained. The Minister of State has told us that she has been to west Yorkshire and has spoken to the experts in that area. She commends what they have done. I hope that she has visited Merseyside as well, whose experts are at risk of being thrown to the winds. They are people of substance and the enactment of the Bill could oblige them to seek employment in other areas. If we are to allow Liverpool, Sefton, the Wirral, St. Helens and Knowsley to have the same expertise as has been available in those areas and built up since 1974, the hon. Lady should examine closely the contents of new clause 8. I hope that the Government will adopt the clause, but I appreciate that I am entering into a dialogue with the deaf.
Unless there is a sign in the Government's response to these amendments that their intention is to keep local government local, it is inevitable that we shall be presented with a national network that will involve more bureaucracy from the centre.

Mr. Tracey: It has always seemed to me that roads, especially local roads, involve issues that become personal. Roads and associated considerations arouse strong sentiments when they are discussed by those who live near them. The Government have recognised that by providing that in the main the highway authority should be the local council. I do not dispute the views that have been expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) and Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley). I do not dispute the views that we have heard from the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) because I do not know the facts.
However, I am only too well aware of the story of two roads. I live close by the south circular road, which is notorious in London. I have knowledge also of a road that is yet to be born, we hope, which is the Kingston relief


road, which is within the royal borough of Kingston upon Thames. This road will have a serious effect on my constituents who are business men in Kingston.
The south circular road has been under the strategic control—I use the term loosely—of the Greater London council. The road is well known as a collection of signposts. It weaves its way across south London. If I had a pound for every time someone has stopped me in one of our suburban highways off the so-called south circular road to ask me whether they were still on it, I should be a very wealthy man. The south circular road is a positive disgrace and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes will confirm that. Over the years the GLC has failed completely to maintain a proper highway for those who want to cross south London. As a local resident, I would rather that the road fell under the control of the Department of Transport than under the GLC. I would prefer the local authority in my area, the excellent borough of Wandsworth, to deal with local matters.
7.30 pm
The Kingston relief road is a classic case of how this fag-end Greater London council is behaving in a particularly partisan way. The GLC secured money from the taxpayer for some of the strategic road schemes in London by using various cases. One of the cases involved the Kingston relief road which, as is well known, is required in Kingston upon Thames. The GLC has that money from the taxpayer in its coffers, yet it refuses to hand it over to the council of the royal borough which is to take on the construction management of that road. It has instead, quite deliberately in my opinion, handed over the money to local authorities controlled by the Labour party in various parts of the GLC area.
That is the way that the strategic authority, the GLC, manages affairs, as far as I can see. I think that it will be better for the people of London, for whom I speak in part, if the responsibility rests with their local authority and, thereafter, with the Department of Transport. I support the Government recommendation that we should disagree with the Lords amendment.

Mr. Tony Banks: When the Minister was telling us why the Lords amendment should be opposed, she said that the reason was that it was not consistent with streamlining. I did not feel that she could say that without cracking into a large smile and then a big belly laugh because she cannot believe that the Bill streamlines anything in terms of either transportation or other services.
I ask the Minister to look carefully at the Bill to see how many successor bodies will inherit the powers of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils. I do not have the time to read through them, but they include joint boards, residuary bodies, co-ordinating joint committees and quangos — a total of 62 bodies. Then there are the Government Departments — the Department of the Environment, the Department of Transport, the Office of Arts and Libraries, the Department of Education and Science and the Home Office. That is another five. Then there are approximately 127 other local authorities. The grand total is 195. Has the Minister ever studied how many bodies will inherit from the GLC and the metropolitan county councils?

Mrs. Chalker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, the chairman of the GLC, for giving way. He is speaking specifically about London so I shall confine my remarks to that. Has he considered how many times the requests of a London borough have to be rubber-stamped or gone through again by the GLC? Why does a borough that needs double yellow lines to make a turn-out from a service road safe have to go to the GLC transportation committee? That is the duplication that we are getting rid of. That is the streamlining that we are doing.

Mr. Banks: That is an interesting point. Has the Minister read the Lords amendment? The hon. Lady will see that the amendment that the Government now seek to overturn was careful to devolve traffic responsibilities on borough roads to the individual boroughs. They would become responsible for traffic signing, signals, parking, pedestrian crossings and speed regulation on the roads. That would considerably reduce duplication.
Whatever the Minister thinks about the GLC, she should not be opposing the Lords amendment. It gives her precisely what she just argued for at the Dispatch Box. She has not read the Lords amendment, and does not understand the consequences of the Bill with regard to streamlining. It is nonsense, and the hon. Lady knows it.

Dr. Ian Twinn: I am surprised that the Opposition should be so vehemently opposed to greater powers being transferred to the boroughs. After all, they have been trying to criticise the Government in our long debates on the Bill, saying that not enough power is being given to the boroughs, that we are not devolving enough power, and that what Conservative Members have been arguing, which is that the whole purpose of the Bill is to give local people a say in local matters, is rubbish. Once they have an opportunity to see real powers being given to the boroughs, the Opposition oppose that.
From my point of view in the London borough of Enfield, it makes sense that the borough should be the responsible authority. It is already responsible for all but very few roads in the borough. The Bill will increase efficiency and reduce costs if the borough is responsible for the few remaining roads in the borough—

Mr. Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way.?

Dr. Twinn: I shall not give way because I think that some of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends still wish to speak.
The GLC's behaviour on road matters has been extraordinary. It uses partisan tactics to stop boroughs that want to go ahead with road schemes in the interests of the local citizens from doing so. There is an example in the borough of Enfield, where the Barnet and Enfield lorry ban has been held up by the GLC, so that the local citizens will not benefit from relief from heavy traffic in the area. We have seen the same example in south London where the GLC, despite the advice of its friends in Southwark and Lewisham, has tried to stop the relief road from the Old Kent road being developed.
The local boroughs need to have those powers so that we can develop roads and road policy in London that are to the advantage of local citizens.

Mr. Cowans: My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) hit the nail on the head. It is patently obvious that the Minister of State either has not read the Bill or has not read the Lords amendment.


She said that there was duplication, but the contrary is the case. I have heard her speak on several occasions, and there are only two conclusions that the House can come to tonight — either that she had a poor brief or that she did not believe that brief. I think that it was both—she had a poor brief and she did not believe it.
The hon. Lady did not make a logical or reasoned case against the amendment when, having changed her mind, she said that those who supported the amendment were those who supported integration. She is perfectly correct. She used to he one of our number, but she has changed. May I drag her, kicking and screaming — it is a frank offer — into the real world?

Mrs. Chalker: I am already in the real world.

Mr. Cowans: I think that the hon. Lady has to come into the real world. She will realise that after I have finished.
There was a Bill on local government in 1972. Being adaptable, local government conformed to the Bill. One of its requirements was that local government should integrate. Was it surprising that it did just that? That was the wish of the Government of the day. The unreasonable argument, "It was like that in the past, and the old county boroughs had those functions," is so naive that Opposition Front Bench spokesmen should not have to expose it. It assumes that nothing happened until the county boroughs became county boroughs. However, the contrary is the case. Because the metropolitan county councils and metropolitan districts were set up under the remit of a Conservative Government in the 1972 Act, services were centralised and systems integrated, such as the Tyne and Wear Metro, many bus services, the central control of traffic movements, and specialised teams to co-ordinate their areas of responsibility. It is no surprise that that happened, but it is surprising that the Minister does not believe that it happened.
If the Lords amendment No. 4 is not accepted, local authorities will be required quickly to dismantle everything that was set up under that Conservative Government. Many Conservative Members seem to favour the Bill so long as it does not affect their constituencies, and where it does affect their areas they have asked the appropriate Minister to make concessions and deviate from the Bill. They must also come into the real world, because that cannot be done.

Mr. Corbyn: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is significant that the Minister seeks to rush through the proposal to trunk 65 miles of London's roads without any public inquiry precisely because she has no answers to the type of objections that hon. Members have been raising on constituency grounds because of the obvious implications of trunking, widening those roads and further taking control of transport planning matters from local people in London?

Mr. Cowans: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I shall return to that relevant point.
I was talking about specialised teams. They are already starting to break up and, not unnaturally, to look elsewhere. The Minister is on record as saying that the Government recognise the specialised teams and would like to keep them, but they leave it to God and good neighbour and do nothing themselves to ensure that those teams continue to exist.
I now come to the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). Apart from integration, the Government believe that there is a strategic role, and that there should be overall planning and control in large areas. The basic difference between us is that the Opposition believe that there should be local democratic control. The Government have set themselves up in London as a de facto strategic body and, therefore, they obviously believe in overall planning and control. They believe that they should be in control and that the local voice should not be heard.
The strategic body in London for transport will be the Department of Transport, and it will have powers, to which it can add ad nauseam at any time. Even the Government's friends in the other place see through that kind of argument. On the Select Committee—I shall not quote from its report because I have no time — the Government do not even have a friend of their own persuasion. Time and time again professional people, hon. Members and their Lordships have rubbished the Government's arguments.
The Government have tried to hide the arguments by bringing the Bill back to the Floor of the House, and pushing it through at the speed of light. There is no substance behind anything that the Minister has said because integrated systems already exist. If we do not pass the Lords amendment, we shall leave overall control to voluntary co-ordination. I have news for the Minister — there is no such animal.
The Government want to ensure that the specialised teams continue to exist, but that will not happen. In the past where joint organisations have been set up and failed to agree, it has been to the detriment of those whom they serve.
I remind the Minister of the content of her speech. She spent 14 minutes on the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), seven minutes on amendment No. 4, which dealt with London, and the glorious sum of five minutes on a major alteration—

It being fifteen minutes to Eight o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the order this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 198, Noes 304.

Division No. 257]
[7.45 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)


Alton, David
Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)


Anderson, Donald
Bruce, Malcolm


Ashdown, Paddy
Buchan, Norman


Ashton, Joe
Caborn, Richard


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Callaghan, Rt Hon J.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Barnett, Guy
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Barron, Kevin
Cartwright, John


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Beith, A. J.
Clarke, Thomas


Benn, Tony
Clay, Robert


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Bermingham, Gerald
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)


Bidwell, Sydney
Cohen, Harry


Blair, Anthony
Coleman, Donald


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Conlan, Bernard


Boyes, Roland
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Corbett, Robin


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Corbyn, Jeremy






Cowans, Harry
McKelvey, William


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
McNamara, Kevin


Craigen, J. M.
McTaggart, Robert


Critchley, Julian
McWilliam, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Madden, Max


Dalyell, Tam
Marek, Dr John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Maxton, John


Deakins, Eric
Maynard, Miss Joan


Dewar, Donald
Meadowcroft, Michael


Dixon, Donald
Michie, William


Dobson, Frank
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Dormand, Jack
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Dubs, Alfred
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Duffy, A. E. P.
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Eadie, Alex
Nellist, David


Eastham, Ken
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
O'Brien, William


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
O'Neill, Martin


Ewing, Harry
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Fatchett, Derek
Park, George


Faulds, Andrew
Parry, Robert


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Patchett, Terry


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Pavitt, Laurie


Fisher, Mark
Pendry, Tom


Flannery, Martin
Penhaligon, David


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Pike, Peter


Forrester, John
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Foster, Derek
Prescott, John


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Radice, Giles


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Randall, Stuart


Freud, Clement
Redmond, M.


Garrett, W. E.
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


George, Bruce
Richardson, Ms Jo


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Godman, Dr Norman
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Golding, John
Robertson, George


Gould, Bryan
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Ground, Patrick
Rogers, Allan


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Rooker, J. W.


Hancock, Mr. Michael
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Hardy, Peter
Rowlands, Ted


Harman, Ms Harriet
Ryman, John


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Sedgemore, Brian


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Sheerman, Barry


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Haynes, Frank
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Heffer, Eric S.
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Skinner, Dennis


Home Robertson, John
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Howells, Geraint
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Hoyle, Douglas
Snape, Peter


Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Soley, Clive


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Stott, Roger


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Strang, Gavin


Janner, Hon Greville
Straw, Jack


John, Brynmor
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Kennedy, Charles
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Tinn, James


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Torney, Tom


Kirkwood, Archy
Wallace, James


Lambie, David
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Lamond, James
Wareing, Robert


Leighton, Ronald
Weetch, Ken


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Winnick, David


Litherland, Robert
Woodall, Alec


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Loyden, Edward



McCartney, Hugh
Tellers for the Ayes:


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Mr. Jeremy Hanley and


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Mr. Simon Hughes.





NOES


Adley, Robert
Evennett, David


Aitken, Jonathan
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Alexander, Richard
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Fallon, Michael


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Farr, Sir John


Amess, David
Favell, Anthony


Ancram, Michael
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Ashby, David
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Aspinwall, Jack
Fletcher, Alexander


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Fookes, Miss Janet


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Forman, Nigel


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Forth, Eric


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Foulkes, George


Baldry, Tony
Fox, Marcus


Batiste, Spencer
Franks, Cecil


Bellingham, Henry
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Bendall, Vivian
Freeman, Roger


Bennett, Rt Hon Sir Frederic
Fry, Peter


Benyon, William
Gale, Roger


Best, Keith
Galley, Roy


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Glyn, Dr Alan


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Goodlad, Alastair


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gow, Ian


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bottomley, Peter
Grant, Sir Anthony


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Greenway, Harry


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Gregory, Conal


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Griffiths, Sir Eldon


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Grist, Ian


Bright, Graham
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Brinton, Tim
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hannam, John


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Bruinvels, Peter
Harris, David


Bryan, Sir Paul
Haselhurst, Alan


Buck, Sir Antony
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Budgen, Nick
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Burt, Alistair
Hawksley, Warren


Butcher, John
Hayes, J.


Butler, Hon Adam
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney


Butterfill, John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Heddle, John


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Henderson, Barry


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Carttiss, Michael
Hickmet, Richard


Cash, William
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hind, Kenneth


Chapman, Sydney
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Chope, Christopher
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Churchill, W. S.
Howard, Michael


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Clegg, Sir Walter
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Cockeram, Eric
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Colvin, Michael
Hunter, Andrew


Coombs, Simon
Irving, Charles


Cope, John
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Corrie, John
Jessel, Toby


Couchman, James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Cranborne, Viscount
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Crouch, David
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Dickens, Geoffrey
Key, Robert


Dicks, Terry
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Dorrell, Stephen
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dover, Den
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Knowles, Michael


Dunn, Robert
Lang, Ian


Durant, Tony
Latham, Michael


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Lawler, Geoffrey


Eggar, Tim
Lee, John (Pendle)


Emery, Sir Peter
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)






Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Rowe, Andrew


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lightbown, David
Ryder, Richard


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Scott, Nicholas


Lord, Michael
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lyell, Nicholas
Shelton, William (Streatham)


McCrindle, Robert
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Macfarlane, Neil
Shersby, Michael


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Silvester, Fred


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Sims, Roger


Maclean, David John
Skeet, T. H. H.


Madel, David
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Major, John
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Malins, Humfrey
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Maples, John
Speller, Tony


Marland, Paul
Spencer, Derek


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Mates, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Maude, Hon Francis
Squire, Robin


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stanbrook, Ivor


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stanley, John


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Steen, Anthony


Merchant, Piers
Stern, Michael


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Moate, Roger
Stokes, John


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Stradling Thomas, J.


Moore, John
Sumberg, David


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Moynihan, Hon C.
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Mudd, David
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Murphy, Christopher
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Neale, Gerrard
Temple-Morris, Peter


Neubert, Michael
Terlezki, Stefan


Newton, Tony
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Nicholls, Patrick
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Norris, Steven
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Onslow, Cranley
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Osborn, Sir John
Thornton, Malcolm


Ottaway, Richard
Thurnham, Peter


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Tracey, Richard


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Trippier, David


Parris, Matthew
Trotter, Neville


Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abdgn)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Pattie, Geoffrey
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Viggers, Peter


Pollock, Alexander
Waddington, David


Portillo, Michael
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Walden, George


Powell, William (Corby)
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Powley, John
Wall, Sir Patrick


Price, Sir David
Waller, Gary


Proctor, K. Harvey
Walters, Dennis


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Raffan, Keith
Watson, John


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Watts, John


Rathbone, Tim
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Wheeler, John


Renton, Tim
Whitfield, John


Rhodes James, Robert
Wiggin, Jerry


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wolfson, Mark


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wood, Timothy


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Woodcock, Michael


Rifkind, Malcolm
Yeo, Tim


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)



Roe, Mrs Marion
Tellers for the Noes:


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Mr. Carol Mather and


Rost, Peter
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

Question accordingly negatived.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment — [Mrs. Chalker.]

The House divided: Ayes 285, Noes 200.

Division No. 258]
[8 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Aitken, Jonathan
Dunn, Robert


Alexander, Richard
Durant, Tony


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Amess, David
Eggar, Tim


Ancram, Michael
Emery, Sir Peter


Ashby, David
Evennett, David


Aspinwall, Jack
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Fallon, Michael


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Farr, Sir John


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Favell, Anthony


Baldry, Tony
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Batiste, Spencer
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Bellingham, Henry
Fletcher, Alexander


Bendall, Vivian
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bennett, Rt Hon Sir Frederic
Forman, Nigel


Best, Keith
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Forth, Eric


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Fox, Marcus


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Franks, Cecil


Body, Richard
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Freeman, Roger


Bottomley, Peter
Fry, Peter


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Gale, Roger


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Galley, Roy


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bright, Graham
Goodlad, Alastair


Brinton, Tim
Gow, Ian


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Gower, Sir Raymond


Brooke, Hon Peter
Grant, Sir Anthony


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Greenway, Harry


Browne, John
Gregory, Conal


Bruinvels, Peter
Griffiths, Sir Eldon


Bryan, Sir Paul
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Buck, Sir Antony
Grist, Ian


Budgen, Nick
Grylls, Michael


Burt, Alistair
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Butcher, John
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Butterfill, John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Hannam, John


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Cash, William
Harris, David


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Haselhurst, Alan


Chapman, Sydney
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Chope, Christopher
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Churchill, W. S.
Hawksley, Warren


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Hayes, J.


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Heddle, John


Clegg, Sir Walter
Henderson, Barry


Cockeram, Eric
Hickmet, Richard


Colvin, Michael
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Coombs, Simon
Hind, Kenneth


Cope, John
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Corrie, John
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Couchman, James
Howard, Michael


Cranborne, Viscount
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Crouch, David
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Dicks, Terry
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Dorrell, Stephen
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Dover, Den
Hunter, Andrew






Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Irving, Charles
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Jessel, Toby
Rifkind, Malcolm


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Key, Robert
Rost, Peter


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Rowe, Andrew


King, Rt Hon Tom
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Ryder, Richard


Knowles, Michael
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lang, Ian
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Latham, Michael
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lawler, Geoffrey
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Shersby, Michael


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Silvester, Fred


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Sims, Roger


Lightbown, David
Skeet, T. H. H.


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lord, Michael
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lyell, Nicholas
Speller, Tony


McCrindle, Robert
Spencer, Derek


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Macfarlane, Neil
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Squire, Robin


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Madel, David
Stanley, John


Major, John
Steen, Anthony


Malins, Humfrey
Stern, Michael


Maples, John
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Marland, Paul
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Maude, Hon Francis
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stokes, John


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stradling Thomas, J.


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Sumberg, David


Merchant, Piers
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Terlezki, Stefan


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Moate, Roger
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thornton, Malcolm


Moore, John
Thurnham, Peter


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Tracey, Richard


Mudd, David
Trippier, David


Murphy, Christopher
Trotter, Neville


Neale, Gerrard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Neubert, Michael
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Newton, Tony
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Nicholls, Patrick
Viggers, Peter


Norris, Steven
Waddington, David


Osborn, Sir John
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Ottaway, Richard
Walden, George


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Waller, Gary


Parris, Matthew
Ward, John


Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abdgn)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Pattie, Geoffrey
Watson, John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Watts, John


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Pollock, Alexander
Whitfield, John


Portillo, Michael
Whitney, Raymond


Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Wiggin, Jerry


Powell, William (Corby)
Wolfson, Mark


Powley, John
Wood, Timothy


Price, Sir David
Woodcock, Michael


Proctor, K. Harvey
Yeo, Tim


Raffan, Keith
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy



Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Renton, Tim
Mr. Carol Mather and


Rhodes James, Robert
Mr. Robert Boscawen.





NOES


Abse, Leo
Godman, Dr Norman


Alton, David
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Anderson, Donald
Gould, Bryan


Ashdown, Paddy
Ground, Patrick


Ashton, Joe
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Hancock, Mr. Michael


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hardy, Peter


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Barnett, Guy
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Barron, Kevin
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Beith, A. J.
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Benn, Tony
Heffer, Eric S.


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Benyon, William
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Bermingham, Gerald
Home Robertson, John


Bidwell, Sydney
Howells, Geraint


Blair, Anthony
Hoyle, Douglas


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)


Boyes, Roland
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Janner, Hon Greville


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
John, Brynmor


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Bruce, Malcolm
Kennedy, Charles


Buchan, Norman
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Caborn, Richard
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Kirkwood, Archy


Campbell, Ian
Knox, David


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Lambie, David


Cartwright, John
Lamond, James


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Leighton, Ronald


Clarke, Thomas
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Clay, Robert
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Litherland, Robert


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cohen, Harry
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Coleman, Donald
Loyden, Edward


Conlan, Bernard
McCartney, Hugh


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Corbyn, Jeremy
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Cowans, Harry
McKelvey, William


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
McNamara, Kevin


Craigen, J. M.
McTaggart, Robert


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McWilliam, John


Dalyell, Tam
Madden, Max


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Marek, Dr John


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Deakins, Eric
Maxton, John


Dewar, Donald
Maynard, Miss Joan


Dixon, Donald
Meadowcroft, Michael


Dobson, Frank
Michie, William


Dormand, Jack
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Dubs, Alfred
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Eadie, Alex
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Eastham, Ken
Moynihan, Hon C.


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Nellist, David


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Ewing, Harry
O'Brien, William


Fatchett, Derek
O'Neill, Martin


Faulds, Andrew
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Park, George


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Parry, Robert


Fisher, Mark
Patchett, Terry


Flannery, Martin
Pavitt, Laurie


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Pendry, Tom


Forrester, John
Penhaligon, David


Foster, Derek
Pike, Peter


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Prescott, John


Freud, Clement
Radice, Giles


Garrett, W. E.
Randall, Stuart


George, Bruce
Redmond, M.


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)






Richardson, Ms Jo
Stott, Roger


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Strang, Gavin


Robertson, George
Straw, Jack


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Rogers, Allan
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Rooker, J. W.
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Tinn, James


Rowlands, Ted
Torney, Tom


Ryman, John
Wallace, James


Sedgemore, Brian
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Sheerman, Barry
Wareing, Robert


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Weetch, Ken


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
White, James


Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Short, Mrs H.(Whampfn NE)
Winnick, David


Silkin, Rt Hon J.
Woodall, Alec


Skinner, Dennis
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Smith, C.(lsl'ton S &amp; F'bury)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)



Snape, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Soley, Clive
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Steel, Rt Hon David
Mr. Robin Corbett.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 4 disagreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 8 disagreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 9, leave out clause 8.

The Minister for Local Government (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following:
Lords amendment No. 10, on page 4, line 35, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
() On the appointed day there shall be established in Greater London and each metropolitan county a body corporate to be known by the name of the London Waste Disposal Authority or by the name of the county with the addition of the words "Waste Disposal Authority", as the case may be.
() Each authority shall consist of members of the constituenct councils appointed by them to be members of the Authority.
() The constituent councils in relation to the London Waste Disposal Authority shall be the London borough councils and the Common Council.
() The constituent councils in relation to a metropolitan waste disposal authority shall be the councils for the metropolitan districts comprised in the county.
() Each authority shall be a joint authority within the meaning of Part IV of this Act and the provisions of that Part shall apply to this section as if this section were included in that Part.
() The functions specified in subsection (2) below shall be discharged by the authority in respect of the area for which it is established.
Amendments thereto: (a) in page 4, line 37, leave out 'authorities' and insert 'councils'.
(b) in page 4, line 42, after 'purpose', insert 'before 15th November 1985'.
(c) in page 5, line 3, leave out 'that' and insert 'the Abolition'.
(d) in page 5, line 4, leave out `may, after consulting the authorities concerned' and insert 'shall'.
(e) in page 5, line 8, at end insert—
'(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1) above the Secretary of State shall have particular regard to the need for satisfactory arrangements in respect of hazardous waste.
(1B) No person shall be a member of an authority established by an order under subsection (1) above unless he is a member of one of the councils for whose areas the authority is established; and any such order may make provision for enabling the Secretary of State to require the authority established by the order to submit to him a scheme for the winding-up of the authority and the transfer to those councils of its functions, property, staff, rights and liabilities.'.

Lords amendment No. 11, in page 5, line 13, leave out subsections (3) to (5).
Lords amendment No. 73, leave out Schedule 6.

Mr. Baker: When the Bill left this House it provided for the responsibility of the GLC and the MCC for waste disposal and regulation to be devolved to borough and district councils. It also provided a reserve power so that if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment was not satisfied that the boroughs and districts had agreed on adequate voluntary joint arrangements for the discharge of those functions he could impose statutory authorities for some or all of those functions in all or part of any metropolitan area. As amended in the other place, the Bill now provides for waste regulation and disposal functions to be transferred to a single joint authority in each area, without any opportunity for the boroughs and districts to put forward proposals themselves to assume those functions on abolition.
The other place was concerned in particular that there should be certainty about future arrangements for waste disposal, and especially for the disposal of hazardous waste. These concerns are shared by hon. Members in all parts of this House. The Government have always recognised the need for adequate arrangements for waste disposal after abolition. With regard to hazardous waste, the guidance note issued to authorities by the Department on 28 March made it clear that we wished to see the creation of a separate unit in each metropolitan area to coordinate these and other non-operational functions. These units could house the specialist staff and facilities which are necessary for these functions and about which there was particular concern in another place.
We do not accept that joint authorities need to be the only or necessarily the best means of achieving adequate arrangements and it is right that the Government should take account of the strong concerns expressed both in this House and in another place.
I believe that the boroughs and districts are in the first instance best placed to judge the most appropriate arrangements for their areas. The Conservative boroughs to which I have spoken take that view. I have also spoken in an unofficial capacity to several of the Labour-controlled districts outside London and they tell me that they take the same view. I appreciate that the Labour-controlled districts have some difficulty in expressing their full opinions on this issue. We propose, therefore, that waste regulation and disposal functions should be devolved to the boroughs and districts. If, however, my right hon. Friend is satisfied that joint arrangements could, with advantage, be made for the discharge of some or all of those functions in the whole or part of any metropolitan area, and adequate joint arrangements have not been made by 15 November 1985, he will have a duty — I stress that it will be a duty — by order to establish a statutory authority to discharge those functions.

Mr. Straw: Why have the Government retreated from the September deadline in the earlier draft stressed in another place as being the time limit for the Secretary of State to be satisfied?

Mr. Baker: In the continuing discussions there is considerable co-operation between many of the Conservative boroughs and the Liberal boroughs in London and in Conservative boroughs in the districts, but


the Labour boroughs in London have not joined in any discussions, and in the metropolitan counties the Labour districts have not formally engaged in discussions. We have every reason to believe that they have well developed plans, particularly in the constituency of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). In many areas outside London it is clear that some subterranean planning has been carried out. I understand that the Labour leaders of the district councils have been unable to come out officially because it is still their policy not to co-operate before Royal Assent. The Government therefore thought it appropriate to extend the deadline to 15 November as the latest date by which the Secretary of State will have to exercise his duty.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: As the right hon. Gentleman formerly represented a constituency next to mine, he knows the problems of north-west London. How does he envisage the 32 London boroughs being able in any way to come to separate arrangements without massive joint arrangements, especially north and south of the Thames? There will have to be at least two, or even four, separate organisations. If it is intended to wait for some agreement between the different political complexions, how can the practical problems be solved by November?

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman represents an area which is part of the "West Waste" group of boroughs, and plans for dealing with the disposal of waste in that area are far advanced. He will appreciate that the powers that my right hon. Friend will have under the Bill as amended will allow the imposition in parts of London of a joint arrangement if such an arrangement is not arrived at voluntarily. I suspect that in that area an arrangement will be arrived at voluntarily.
8.15 pm
The five southern boroughs — Bromley, Croydon, Sutton, Merton and Kingston upon Thames — have had extensive discussions among themselves as to how they will co-operate, and I believe that they will be able to come to a voluntary a rrangement. A great deal of disposal is carried out on a geographical basis. The refuse that arises from the western parts of London will be disposed of out towards the west, that from the south to the south, and so on around London. The hon. Gentleman should not underestimate the interests of the boroughs themselves to co-operate voluntarily to provide this service.

Mr. Robin Squire: Taking London as an example, my right hon. Friend said that he could envisage circumstances in which if there was not co-operation in certain boroughs a joint authority would be set up under the instruction of the Secretary of State to look after the remainder of the boroughs which have not co-operated. Can my right hon. Friend hazard a guess whether if arrangements made by some boroughs collectively, including the letting of contracts, and so on, do not appear "satisfactory", the Secretary of State will have powers to overrule those contracts?

Mr. Baker: The Secretary of State will have powers which he has a duty to exercise by 15 November and which will allow him to set up a joint authority for the whole of a particular conurbation or for parts of it. In the southern part, the northern part, or wherever it may be, the various

district councils may have come together to work in a positive way. One of the factors which my right hon. Friend will have to consider is the way in which existing contracts are honoured. The contracts may be with the private sector or with the surrounding county councils.
In making his decision the Secretary of State will be required to have particular regard to satisfactory arrangements for hazardous waste. The Secretary of State will also retain the discretionary power to establish a statutory authority if initially satisfactory voluntary joint arrangements subsequently break down. To ensure, however, that there remains a real prospect of the devolution of functions even if statutory authorities are established under these arrangements, the authorities would be required within a reasonable time, probably 12 months, of their establishment to submit proposals to my right hon. Friend for their functions to be devolved to their constituent councils.
It may help the House if I explain in some detail the types of voluntary arrangements which my right hon. Friend would be prepared to consider and the steps which would precede his decision on whether to establish a statutory authority in any metropolitan area. The guidance note issued in March set out the types of arrangement which it seems to us would be sensible in each metropolitan area. As I have already made clear, we envisage special arrangements for hazardous waste. Those arrangements will generally need to be countywide, unless it can be clearly demonstrated that they would be satisfactory on some other basis. With regard to operational functions, some districts can probably operate in isolation, and they may well be Labour districts, but in other areas it will make sense for the districts to group together. It may even make sense in at least one county for all the districts to come together in an operational group. Where boroughs and districts produce proposals for groupings they can be either non-statutory or be enshrined in an order made under the reserve power. I emphasise again that we want to see arrangements made which are appropriate to each area, but we have to be assured that they are satisfactory arrangements.
We shall invite those boroughs and districts which have not already done so to submit to us, by 30 September, their detailed proposals for voluntary joint arrangements, in particular for hazardous waste. As soon as possible, and ideally within 10 days of that deadline, we shall — following discussion with those authorities as necessary — let them have our reactions to their proposals. We shall then invite them, as soon as possible, to work up those proposals, modified as necessary in the light of our comments, into the draft terms of a mutually binding agreement between them. If the terms of those draft agreements seem to us satisfactory, we shall then ask the boroughs and districts to submit signed agreements by early November. My right hon. Friend will then be able, in the light of those signed agreements, to reach his final decision by the statutory deadline of 15 November on whether the arrangements embodied in those agreements are, in his judgment, satisfactory. If he judges them to be satisfactory, he need do nothing.

Mr. Walter Harrison: Does the Minister identify excess water as hazardous waste? Does he intend to refer to excess water?

Mr. Baker: Excess water may have an effect upon hazardous waste if there is seepage. It is probably more directly connected with that part of the Bill concerned with drainage.

Mr. Harrison: Surely it is a matter that comes under the items which the Minister has mentioned.

Mr. Baker: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to raise a particular point, I shall, of course, deal with it.
This is my first opportunity to tell the right hon. Gentleman how sorry I was to hear that he intends to resign at the next election.

Mr. Harrison: The Minister must not say that. I do not intend to resign. I do not intend to seek re-election. There is a difference between resignation and retirement. One is the more elegant way of expressing oneself.

Mr. Baker: I do not want to intrude into the niceties of what is happening in the Labour party. I was lucky to serve under the right hon. Gentleman, when he was a Whip, on my first Committee in 1968 on the Finance Bill. There was a historic moment when he was half inside and half outside the door for a Division, and I understand that it is so recorded in Hansard.
I return now to the question of waste disposal. The functions will be devolved to the borough and district councils to be performed in accordance with those agreements on abolition day. If, on the other hand, my right hon. Friend judges those arrangements not to be satisfactory, he will be under a duty to establish statutory authorities to discharge those functions. We shall issue detailed advice to the boroughs and districts on the steps in that process, and on the criteria against which my right hon. Friend would judge the adequacy of their proposals for joint arrangements, immediately after Royal Assent.
I believe that the amendments we have now tabled represent a considerable strengthening of the reserve power. I am confident that, by placing my right hon. Friend under a duty to establish statutory authorities if he is not satisfied by 15 November 1985 that the voluntary arrangements are adequate, they provide the guarantee of satisfactory arrangements on abolition which, legitimately, both Houses have sought. At the same time, we have retained the flexibility to enable us to take account of the wishes of the boroughs and districts. The requirement for my right hon. Friend to have particular regard to the need for satisfactory arrangements for hazardous waste will secure the future of those vital functions. I believe that the provisions will ensure that satisfactory arrangements for waste disposal are in being on the appointed day.
The House of Lords, quite rightly, debated hazardous waste at some length. We are at one with Lord Cranbrook on the importance of maintaining existing centres of expertise and scientific advice, especially for hazardous waste. We are most grateful to him and to a Select Committee of another place, which he chaired, for their valuable advice on these aspects. We also recognise and appreciate the contribution of Lord Gregson both in the 1981 report with which he was associated and his subsequent actions. However, we consider that their concerns are fully met by our proposals.
I wish to deal with two points of some concern. The first is the concern of the home counties about the waste arrangements for London. I am, of course, well aware of

the views of the home counties, and in particular their common concern to see close co-ordination of the boroughs' arrangements for the disposal of London's waste. I have met representatives of the home counties on two occasions during the past eight months, and the proposals which we are now making in respect of waste regulation and disposal are intended to try to meet those concerns. Clause 9, as now proposed, would provide the certainty of stable voluntary arrangements, underpinned by binding contractual commitments, which were sought by the home counties. I have offered to meet the home counties' representatives again later in the summer when a more detailed picture of the arrangements proposed by the boroughs will be available.
I wish now to deal with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Horrichurch (Mr. Squire) about guarantees for the private sector companies which have waste disposal contracts with the GLC and the metropolitan county councils. It will, of course, be important to ensure that the major contractors which actually dispose of most of the waste in London and the metropolitian counties do riot suffer as a result of abolition.
I am conscious of the importance of the role played by those contractors, and the heavy investment involved. We have made it clear to successor authorities that any large-scale abandonment of existing contracts would be unacceptable, and I am glad to have the opportunity this evening to reassure the House that this remains the Government's position.
In asking the House to disagree with the Lords in the said amendment, and to agree with the amendment that we are proposing, I believe that that will provide adequate and appropriate arrangements for waste disposal in both London and the metropolitan counties. I ask the House to remember that we have had representations, both officially and unofficially, from many of the London boroughs and district councils saying that they can co-operate voluntarily, one with the other, or in groups of three or four. The functions of disposal of waste can be properly devolved and delegated.
I wish to emphasise again that it is important that hazardous waste is dealt with on a wide basis.

Mr. Straw: I shall be as brief as possible as we now have only 18 minutes before the guillotine falls.
The Minister is a master in the art of soft soap. His praise for the noble Lord Cranbrook would be rather more credible had he accepted — and accepted in full — the advice of the Select Committee that the noble Lord chairs. Speaking on behalf of the Select Committee, the noble Lord pointed out that it was evident, and had always been evident, from the Government's reserve proposals that they lacked confidence in the system of devolution. They believed that it would take two months to take a step that we believe should have been taken now. The nettle should have been grasped and it should have been acknowledged that waste disposal, as opposed to waste collection, could not possibly be handled on a borough-by-borough basis.
The Minister accepted that in his speech today. He said that he thought that in one county — he did not say which, but he may intervene to tell us — all the districts could make up one group. That is a countywide function He suggested that in other counties and the GLC there might be a number of groups. It is extremely unlikely,


even with his political desire to devolve waste disposal, that there will be more than a handful of boroughs that will handle disposal themselves. The Government should have recognised that the counties and the GLC have a great success story. No one has criticised them in their efforts to improve and co-ordinate waste disposal since they were established 10 years ago.
It is quite unacceptable political vandalism to embark on proposals such as these and then bit by bit, and extremely reluctantly, to back off. The Government only back off when they have lost the vote, not the arguments. If my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) had intervened, he would have pointed out that we put forward amendments in terms similar to those put forward in the other place in respect of hazardous waste. They were brushed aside in Committee and in this place because of the Government's majority.
The Minister presents his change as a concession to the Lords amendments. I am unconvinced. It is true that, in place of a general reserve power, the Secretary of State now has to be satisfied about the district-wide arrangements or to trigger the countywide proposals. That is on the plus side. But, on the minus side, he has moved the deadline by some six weeks. If Labour-controlled authorities were co-operating as the Minister suggests — I do not claim much for myself but I do claim to be more in touch with Labour leaders than he is — that would be an argument for advancing the deadline from September, not for extending the deadline to November.
By November, four months after Royal Assent, if Royal Assent is received this side of summer, what will happen to the staff who run those county authorities? Faced with such uncertainty, many of the best staff in those units will seek other employment. That is the nature of the world. If the Minister leaves it until 15 November to attempt to establish joint arrangements or to satisfy himself that the district-wide arrangements are satisfactory he will find that the good staff are not available. I very much doubt that the Minister has taken account of that.
Waste disposal has always been the subject of music hall jokes, but the truth is that it is an efficient and effective system of collection and disposal and is one of the buttresses to civilisation. Without effective waste collection and disposal we would have no public health, and no decent cities and towns in which to live.
We believe that these arrangements are ill thought out. They will cause administrative chaos and may well cause disruption in the disposal of waste. The other place had it right when it proposed that there should be countywide arrangements, and we shall support those arrangements tonight.

Mr. Cartwright: This is another area in which all the expert opinion is against what the Government are proposing. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) quoted the report of the Select Committee of the other place. In June of this year the Department of the Environment's hazardous waste inspectorate reported on the matter of hazardous waste in the United Kingdom. The report concluded that only the GLC and the West Midlands county council were dealing successfully with the problem, largely because of their size and their expertise. These officials, the Government's own officials, said:
The HWI would view with alarm any prospects of these experienced hazardous waste management teams being

disbanded upon abolition of the GLC … The HWI attaches great importance to the retention of these experienced waste management teams and considers that any other action would result in chaos in hazardous waste management.
That is the expert view of the people who were doing the job.
The Government's amendment does not inspire a great deal of confidence. It gives the Secretary of State authority to require the winding up of any of the new bodies which may be created. That hardly gives us great faith that they will last long. It certainly leads to the view that the Government are hankering after giving these powers to borough and district councils.
The date of 15 November 1985 is only the most recent of a long line of final dates from the Government on this issue. We were originally told that everything would be ready by July 1984. It was then December 1984. In Committee, the Minister told us that he was prepared to stay his hand until the end of February 1985. On Report, he told us that everything would have to be settled by September 1985. That date was given again in another place. We now have a further slippage to 15 November 1985.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: If the hon. Gentleman had heard what I said earlier, he would appreciate that I invited proposals until September. I have said that there must be contractually binding agreements by 15 November. At that stage obligations with the home counties or private contractors will have to be explained. Extra is being required.

Mr. Cartwright: The Minister is a past master when it comes to command of English prose but, on Report, he said that he would have to have settled on a future set of arrangements by the beginning of September 1985. That does not seem to be the receipt of proposals, but something much firmer than the Minister is now suggesting.
There must be some doubt whether 15 November 1985 allows enough time for a statutory joint authority to be created. As the hon. Member for Blackburn said, it will have to consider key staff, sort out budgets and prepare for the imposition of a precept. Are we to believe that all that can be done in four months? Those of us who have some experience of these problems have reason to doubt it.
We are being offered a choice not between a voluntary and a statutory system, but between a single strategic authority with the benefits of technical expertise, economies of scale and efficiency that that offers and a hotch-potch of groups of boroughs with some voluntary and some imposed functions. Faced with such a choice, the only intelligent and reasonable thing to do is to support the Lords amendment.

Mr. Harrison: I should like to express my appreciation to the Minister for wishing me all the best for the future.
I have trotted around the Chamber for quite a while and I have often thought that hon. Members were considered to be out of order for no reason that I could discern. As a Back Bencher, I find that whatever subject I raise, I am out of order. I therefore consulted my Front Bench to see if I would be in order talking about water and drainage. They said, "Oh, no. The debate is on waste disposal and the rest." The Minister gave way to me and allowed me to talk about water. When I thought of hazardous waste, I thought of what comes up the toilet instead of going down, which is what happens when there is flooding. Does


that get in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker? I have been in Wakefield for some time. I consider the matter to be in order and would like to enlarge.

Mr. Tony Banks: Do not forget that there is a guillotine.

Mr. Harrison: I do not know how long I have.

Mr. Straw: Three minutes.

Mr. Harrison: Thanks very much. I am anxious to cover matters that will not be debated again — flooding and drainage. Wakefield is flooded almost yearly. I have pleaded with the Lords and at least 12 Ministers and asked many questions about flooding but I am not getting much nearer a solution, as the matter is dealt with voluntarily. Even the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's Green Paper said that the Government are considering two possible options. What will happen when the Government get rid of the metropolitan councils? A previous Tory Administration delegated authority but forgot to include provision for land drainage. In the 1974 local government reorganisation, the Tories denuded my county, metropolitan district councils and my local water authority of power. They are having to go around with a begging bowl. The begging bowl gets 33 per cent. for a feasibility study from the Wakefield metropolitan area; 25 per cent. from the county; 10 per cent. from the quango Yorkshire water authority; and 32 per cent, from MAFF. If it had been two years later there would have been no percentage agreement, because in 12 months MAFF has dropped from 45 to 32 per cent. Which designated authority will deal with land drainage and flooding problems that will exist in my constituency if something is not done?
There may be people listening to me with whom I have pleaded in another place. They will not give me a copy of the feasibility study report which I could give to Wakefield metropolitan council. I have been refused a copy and I would be helped in my endeavours to try to solve the problems of flooding in Wakefield if I had a copy. Will the Minister look into this matter so that on this occasion the Government do not compound the mistake they made in 1974 on the reorganisation of local government?

Mr. Tracey: I have had a strong feeling from the beginning of discussion on this Bill that Opposition Members do not have their hearts in this amendment. That has been confirmed by what my right hon. Friend told the House, that behind the scenes, as so often happens, Labour authorities are keen and willing to take on these arrangements because they can see very distinct benefits. In the view of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), my right hon. Friend is a master of soft soap. Of course, the hon. Member for Blackburn is well known as a dramatic and very often melodramatic speaker. I do not object to that, it is often very entertaining, but it does not necessarily add up to much.
We had a further example of that tonight when he sought, and he has just sought again through a sedentary intervention, to say that Labour authorities are very happy with the amendments they are putting forward and they are not at all happy with the Government's proposals. That remains to be seen, but so far I have not been able to put my finger on much evidence from the Opposition Benches that they are serious about the amendments. The hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) gave us a detective story of dates in seeking to prove that the

Government were up to foul deeds behind the scenes on exactly when these arrangements were to be made. The point seems very clear. The people of this country, of London and the metropolitan counties, are concerned that their dustbins are emptied efficiently and that the waste is carted off to whatever multiple resource is there to burn it, dump it or bury it. The arrangements for London, for which I speak with a certain amount of authority I hope, amount to the Greater London council entering into contracts with certain large enterprises to dispose of the waste well outside the boundaries of the capital. It seems ridiculous that we should need a joint board simply to finalise a contract to do such a thing.

Mr. Nellist: rose—

Mr. Tracey: I am very short of time so perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue. The local authorities could just as well finalise that contract on their own joint arrangement as can this joint board. There is great scope for the local authorities to be able to finalise contracts for greater cost-effectiveness, just as happened with Southend's local council and in various boroughs in London, including the notable example of Wandsworth, so often a forerunner in these matters. Surely that is what we are seeking here. The Government are very wise to seek to disagree with the Lords amendment, and I fully support what my right hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Pavitt: The House knows my concern with public health and hazardous waste. We have a system which is working and fully monitored and it is irresponsible suddenly to cut that up and destroy it. I accuse the Government of playing with the health of the people in all the county boroughs concerned.

Amendment (b) negatived Lords amendment No. 9 disagreed to.

Clause 9

JOINT ARRANGEMENTS FOR WASTE DISPOSAL FUNCTIONS

Lords amendment: No. 10, in page 4, line 35, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
() On the appointed day there shall be established in Greater London and each metropolitan county a body corporate to be known by the name of the London Waste Disposal Authority or by the name of the county with the addition of the words "Waste Disposal Authority", as the case may be.
() Each authority shall consist of members of the constituent councils appointed by them to be members of the Authority.
() The constituent councils in relation to the London Waste Disposal Authority shall be the London borough councils and the Common Council.
() The constituent councils in relation to a metropolitan waste disposal authority shall be the councils for the metropolitan districts comprised in the county.
() Each authority shall be a joint authority within the meaning of Part IV of this Act and the provisions of that Part shall apply to this section as if this section were included in that Part.
() The functions specified in subsection (2) below shall be discharged by the authority in respect of the area for which it is established.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 301, Noes 194.

Division No. 259]
[8.45 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Ancram, Michael


Alexander, Richard
Ashby, David


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Aspinwall, Jack


Amess, David
Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)






Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Forth, Eric


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Baldry, Tony
Fox, Marcus


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Franks, Cecil


Batiste, Spencer
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Bellingham, Henry
Freeman, Roger


Bendall, Vivian
Fry, Peter


Bennett, Rt Hon Sir Frederic
Gale, Roger


Benyon, William
Galley, Roy


Best, Keith
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Glyn, Dr Alan


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Goodlad, Alastair


Body, Richard
Gow, Ian


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bottomley, Peter
Grant, Sir Anthony


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Greenway, Harry


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Gregory, Conal


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Griffiths, Sir Eldon


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Grist, Ian


Bright, Graham
Grylls, Michael


Brinton, Tim
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Browne, John
Hannam, John


Bruinvels, Peter
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Bryan, Sir Paul
Harris, David


Buck, Sir Antony
Haselhurst, Alan


Budgen, Nick
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Burt, Alistair
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Butcher, John
Hawksley, Warren


Butler, Hon Adam
Hayes, J.


Butterfill, John
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Heddle, John


Carttiss, Michael
Henderson, Barry


Cash, William
Hickmet, Richard


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Chapman, Sydney
Hind, Kenneth


Chope, Christopher
Hirst, Michael


Churchill, W. S.
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Holt, Richard


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Howard, Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Clegg, Sir Walter
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Cockeram, Eric
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Colvin, Michael
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Coombs, Simon
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Cope, John
Hunter, Andrew


Corrie, John
Irving, Charles


Couchman, James
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Cranborne, Viscount
Jessel, Toby


Crouch, David
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dicks, Terry
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Dorrell, Stephen
Key, Robert


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Dover, Den
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Knowles, Michael


Dunn, Robert
Lamont, Norman


Durant, Tony
Lang, Ian


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Latham, Michael


Eggar, Tim
Lawler, Geoffrey


Emery, Sir Peter
Lee, John (Pendle)


Evennett, David
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lightbown, David


Fallon, Michael
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Farr, Sir John
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Favell, Anthony
Lord, Michael


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lyell, Nicholas


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
McCrindle, Robert


Fletcher, Alexander
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Fookes, Miss Janet
Macfarlane, Neil


Forman, Nigel
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)





MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Maclean, David John
Scott, Nicholas


McQuarrie, Albert
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Madel, David
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Major, John
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Malins, Humfrey
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Malone, Gerald
Shersby, Michael


Maples, John
Silvester, Fred


Marland, Paul
Sims, Roger


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Maude, Hon Francis
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Speller, Tony


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Spencer, Derek


Mellor, David
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Merchant, Piers
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Squire, Robin


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Stanley, John


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Steen, Anthony


Moate, Roger
Stern, Michael


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Moore, John
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Moynihan, Hon C.
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Mudd, David
Stokes, John


Murphy, Christopher
Stradling Thomas, J.


Neale, Gerrard
Sumberg, David


Needham, Richard
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Neubert, Michael
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Newton, Tony
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Nicholls, Patrick
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Norris, Steven
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Osborn, Sir John
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Ottaway, Richard
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Thornton, Malcolm


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Thurnham, Peter


Parris, Matthew
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abdgn)
Tracey, Richard


Pattie, Geoffrey
Trippier, David


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Trotter, Neville


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Twinn, Dr Ian


Pollock, Alexander
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Portillo, Michael
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Viggers, Peter


Powell, William (Corby)
Waddington, David


Powley, John
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Price, Sir David
Walden, George


Proctor, K. Harvey
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Wall, Sir Patrick


Raffan, Keith
Waller, Gary


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Ward, John


Rathbone, Tim
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Watson, John


Renton, Tim
Watts, John


Rhodes James, Robert
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Whitfield, John


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Whitney, Raymond


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Wiggin, Jerry


Rifkind, Malcolm
Wolfson, Mark


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Wood, Timothy


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Woodcock, Michael


Roe, Mrs Marion
Yeo, Tim


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Rost, Peter



Rowe, Andrew
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Mr. Carol Mather and


Ryder, Richard
Mr. Robert Boscawen.


Sackville, Hon Thomas



NOES


Abse, Leo
Barron, Kevin


Alton, David
Beckett, Mrs Margaret


Anderson, Donald
Beith, A. J.


Ashdown, Paddy
Benn, Tony


Ashton, Joe
Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Bermingham, Gerald


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bidwell, Sydney


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Blair, Anthony


Barnett, Guy
Boothroyd, Miss Betty






Boyes, Roland
Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Janner, Hon Greville


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
John, Brynmor


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Bruce, Malcolm
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Buchan, Norman
Kennedy, Charles


Caborn, Richard
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Kirkwood, Archy


Campbell, Ian
Lambie, David


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Lamond, James


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Leighton, Ronald


Cartwright, John
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Clarke, Thomas
Litherland, Robert


Clay, Robert
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Loyden, Edward


Cohen, Harry
McCartney, Hugh


Coleman, Donald
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Conlan, Bernard
McKelvey, William


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
McNamara, Kevin


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
McTaggart, Robert


Corbett, Robin
McWilliam, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Madden, Max


Cowans, Harry
Marek, Dr John


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Craigen, J. M.
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Dalyell, Tam
Maxton, John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Meadowcroft, Michael


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Michie, William


Deakins, Eric
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Dewar, Donald
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dixon, Donald
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Dobson, Frank
Nellist, David


Dormand, Jack
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Dubs, Alfred
O'Brien, William


Duffy, A. E. P.
O'Neill, Martin


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Eadie, Alex
Park, George


Eastham, Ken
Parry, Robert


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Patchett, Terry


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Pavitt, Laurie


Ewing, Harry
Pendry, Tom


Fatchett, Derek
Penhaligon, David


Faulds, Andrew
Pike, Peter


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Prescott, John


Fisher, Mark
Radice, Giles


Flannery, Martin
Randall, Stuart


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Redmond, M.


Forrester, John
Rees, Rt Hon M. ("Leeds S)


Foster, Derek
Richardson, Ms Jo


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Freud, Clement
Robertson, George


Garrett, W. E.
Rogers, Allan


George, Bruce
Rooker, J. W.


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Godman, Dr Norman
Rowlands, Ted


Golding, John
Ryman, John


Gould, Bryan
Sedgemore, Brian


Ground, Patrick
Sheerman, Barry


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Hancock, Mr. Michael
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hardy, Peter
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Short, Mrs (Whampt'n NE)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Skinner, Dennis


Haynes, Frank
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Heffer, Eric S.
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Snape, Peter


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Soley, Clive


Home Robertson, John
Stott, Roger


Howells, Geraint
Strang, Gavin


Hoyle, Douglas
Straw, Jack





Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
White, James


Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Thorne, Stan (Preston)
Winnick, David


Tinn, James
Woodall, Alec


Torney, Tom
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Wainwright, R.
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Wallace, James



Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Tellers for the Noes:


Wareing, Robert
Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe and


Weetch, Ken
Mr. Allen McKay.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendments made in lieu of Lords amendment No. 10:

(a) in page 4, line 37, leave out 'authorities' and insert 'councils'.

(b) in page 4, line 42, after 'purpose', insert before 15th November 1985'.

(c) in page 5, line 3, leave out 'that' and insert 'the abolition'.

(d) in page 5, line 4, leave out 'may, after consulting the authorities concerned' and insert 'shall'.

(e) in page 5, line 8, at end insert—
'(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1) above the Secretary of State shall have particular regard to the need for satisfactory arrangements in respect of hazardous waste.
(1B) No person shall be a member of an authority established by an order under subsection (1) above unless he is a member of one of the councils for whose areas the authority is established; and any such order may make provision for enabling the Secretary of State to require the authority established by the order to submit to him a scheme for the winding-up of the authority and the transfer to those councils of its functions, property, staff, rights and liabilities.'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Lords amendment No 11 disagreed to.

Clause 10

LAND DRAINAGE AND FLOOD PREVENTION FUNCTIONS

Lords amendment No. 12 agreed to.

Clause 20

CONSULTATION WITH INNER LONDON BOROUGHS AND THE CITY

Lords amendment No. 13: In page 15, line 9, leave out "or as the Secretary of State maydirect"

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this may we take the following Lords amendments: No. 14, in page 15, line 18, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—
(1) The Secretary of State may before 31 March 1991 review the exercise by the Authority of its functions relating to education.
No. 15, in page 15, line 32, leave out from "section.' to "and" in line 34.
No. 16, in page 15, line 34, leave out "the first".
Amendment (a) thereto in lieu of the said Lords amendment, in page 15, line 34, leave out 'first such'.
No. 17, in page 15, line 36, leave out subsection (4).
No. 18, in page 15, line 43, leave out subsections (5) and (6).
Amendments thereto:
(a) in page 72, line 11, leave out '21'.
(b) in page 72, line 16, leave out '21 or'.

Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have just debated amendments about waste disposal. West Midlands county council handles 40 per cent. of this country's hazardous waste. It should be put on the record that an hon. Member who represents the area, who is a county coucillor for the area and who has served on a waste disposal committee was the one hon. Member not called in the debate.

9 pm.

Mr. Dunn: Amendment No. 13 deletes from clause 20 the power for my right hon. Friend to direct the new ILEA to provide specified information to the inner London boroughs or the City for the purposes of the consultation required by this clause between the new authority and those councils. As my noble Friend, Lord Gowrie, made clear in introducing this amendment in another place, the power for my right hon. Friend to direct the new ILEA to provide specified information is of a different kind from his other powers under the clause. If the new ILEA does not comply with a reasonable request for information, the councils will be able to seek effective remedy through the court. The involvement of my right hon. Friend is therefore on reflection unnecessary.
The amendments to clause 21 delete the requirement for my right hon. Friend to undertake an initial review of the new ILEA by 31 March 1991 and his discretionary power to undertake subsequent reviews. They also delete the provision for any reallocation of the new ILEA's functions to be achieved by order. The amendments substitute a discretionary power to undertake a review by 31 March 1991 but make no provision for the implementation of any changes in the light of that review. Such changes would therefore require fresh primary legislation.
The strongest objection to clause 21, both in this House and in another place, has been to the proposal that there should be a power for my right hon. Friend to reallocate the new ILEA's functions by order. We have listened carefully to the arguments, put very strongly in another place, that, if the new administrative structure which we are establishing for education in inner London needs adjustment in the light of experience, then that adjustment should be made by primary legislation. We have been convinced by those arguments.
I am not, therefore, asking the House to disagree with the amendments made in another place. On two points, however, further amendments are necessary to give them full effect. First, amendment No. 16 retains a reference in the clause to "such report". There is now only provision for one report. We propose that the clause should refer to "the report" and this is achieved by our substitute amendment. Secondly, although amendment No. 18 deletes my right hon. Friend's order-making power, reference to that power remains in clause 100. Our consequential amendments delete those references.
I must make clear that our acceptance of these amendments does not mean that we are any less concerned by the policies of ILEA which result in its spending between 29 per cent. and 59 per cent. more per school pupil than the inner city partnership authorities outside London, which have similar problems, spend without achieving results that are proportionately better. We remain no less determined to improve ILEA's cost effectiveness. We are confident that the new elected ILEA offers the best prospect for improving standards and cost effectiveness and we shall look to the members elected

next May to vindicate our expectation. But, if experience shows that further structural change is required, the need to secure primary legislation will not deter us from taking the necessary steps.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: We on the Opposition Benches welcome the Minister's conversion, although I am not absolutely certain whether it is genuine. He spoiled his speech by his attack on ILEA. He would have shown more grace had he accepted all the arguments for ILEA. As the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, I welcome the Government's backing off from the idea that something as important and as substantial as ILEA can be abolished as the result of a statutory instrument after 90 minutes' debate.
The cynic in me wonders why the Government left such a provision in the Bill in the first place, and comes to the conclusion that they did so that it could be left out at this point as a token concession to the other place. It is noticeable that this is one of the few concessions that the Government have made, and it does not have much substance.
The real concession was made at the start when the Government agreed to abandon their idea to abolish ILEA. From that point, the Government wanted a face-saving device, having led some of the London boroughs to believe that they might take on education powers. The Government wanted to put something in the Bill instead, so that the idea of a review and a possible later devolving of powers remained. I hope that the Government will make clear that they have abandoned any idea of carrying out a review, because the new body should be allowed to get on with its job without the continued threat of blackmail from the Government that if it does not do just what the Government want it will be abolished.
The Government are retaining massive draconian powers over ILEA. Not only are there the rate-capping provisions of other legislation but there are staff control and review provisions. It is sad that the Minister returned again to cost effectiveness. No one has managed to show that ILEA does not do a better job than some of the other authorities that spend less money. He trotted out the exam results but he and the Secretary of State would agree that exam results are not the only criteria by which to measure success. If one uses exam results, one has to look at other factors such as the social background of the children.
It would have been far better if the Minister had reduced some of the controls over ILEA, recognised the first-class job that it is doing and also acknowledged that it should be responsive to local democracy. The people of London are justly proud of the services that ILEA provides. I am sure that in the first election to the new body there will be a resounding vote of confidence in Labour representatives who want to go on providing a first-class education service. Sadly, they will get a mandate from the electorate but the Government will have the veto over sufficient resources to carry out the policies.
The Government should stop continually sniping at ILEA, and proudly tell the country what a first-class job ILEA does. The Minister said that other inner-city authorities were more cost effective than is ILEA. He should remember that the HMI report said that only 11 local education authorities were providing a satisfactory


standard of education and that ILEA was one. It seems that the Government are determined to remove ILEA from that group by restricting its resources.
Although I welcome the Government's removal of the obnoxious bits of this Bill, there will be a continuing campaign from Labour Benches to ensure that ILEA has the resources to continue to do a first-class job.

Mr. Frank Dobson: I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) in welcoming the death-bed conversion of the Government to the arguments put repeatedly by the Labour party over the past five years. I am not sure that they were as convinced by the arguments mounted in the other place as by the outcome of the Division, in particular on the amendment moved by the Lord Bishop of London, somebody who does not normally command much support from the Labour party.
We welcome the removal of one of the innumerable threats and worries that the Government have posed to ILEA over the past few years. As the parent of three children who attend ILEA schools, I am as conscious as anyone of the genuine shortcomings of that authority. Those who run the authority, both the elected members and the people who work for it, are also aware of the shortcomings.
One of our major criticisms of the Government is that at all times from 1979 until now the effort of all those in inner London who want to improve the standard of education has had to be diverted time and time again from the schools to protecting the existence of the authority and fighting for sufficient resources with which to carry out a difficult job. When he was the hon. Member for the City of Westminster, St. Marylebone, the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) played a prominent part in seeking to undermine ILEA. His fatuous Baker report called for the break-up of ILEA and for its duties and powers to be devolved to the constituent boroughs. He will not receive a prize for consistency by urging the House to support the Lords amendment. The right hon. Member for Mole Valley no longer represents the City of Westminster, St. Marylebone. He had to do a bunk to Mole Valley, presumably because he was frightened of the parents of children attending ILEA schools in his Marylebone constituency.
All hon. Members who represent inner London constituencies want ILEA to be provided with a period of stability and certainty so that the teachers, the other staff of the authority, the children and the parents can concentrate upon improving the standard of education. They want the Government to provide sufficient resources to enable them to carry out that job. ILEA is being denied those resources. Rate capping will damage the standards of education in inner London. The constant sniping, bickering and mean-minded malignancy of the Secretary of State and his hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) have severely damaged the morale of all concerned.
If the Government do not resign shortly, the best thing that they could do would be to turn their attention to that London organisation which, compared with other organisations, is by far and away the most expensive and the least competent, the Metropolitan police. The only problem is that if they turned their attention to that expensive and incompetent body, they would find that the Home Secretary is the responsible authority. It would be better if the Government did something about the

Metropolitan police for which they are directly responsible and allowed ILEA to get on with its difficult and important task.

Mr. Chris Smith: I, too, welcome the Government's admission of the strength of the arguments that have been advanced both in this House and in another place. Their recognition of the truth of the arguments comes, I suspect, not just from the force with which they were put but from their recognition of the enormous strength of feeling among parents right across inner London about the value of the education that their children receive from the Inner London education authority. That is true of my constituents, many of whore have written and spoken to me about the subject since the Bill was introduced.
The Opposition wish that in taking this first step in the learning process the Government had taken some further steps. ILEA will still be affected by the vicious rate-capping proposals that have been imposed upon it this year by the Government. If further designations are to be announced in the next few weeks, ILEA might be rate capped next year.
The Secretary of State has also taken powers to interfere in the sensible running of ILEA. He has not taken similar powers to interfere in the running of other education authorities. When Her Majesty's Inspectorate says that of all the education authorities in Britain only six —one of which is ILEA —are providing, anything like an adequate standard of education it ill behoves the Government to start interfering with and intervening in that authority and not look at the standard of education that is provided elsewhere. The Government should direct their attention to that aspect, not to the excellent work that is done by teachers, staff and everyone who works in and for ILEA. That work is deeply valued by parents and other people in my constituency and throughout inner London. I welcome the Government's conversion. I hope that it will be the first of several in the right direction.

It being a quarter past Nine o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Lords amendment No. 13 agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER then proceeded to put the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Lords amendment No. 16 disagreed to.

Amendment (a) made to the Bill in lieu thereof.

Lords amendments Nos. 24 to 33, 40 and 41 disagreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 14, 15, 17 to 23, 34 to 39 and 42 agreed to.

Government amendments (a) and (b) to Lords amendment No. 18 agreed to.

Clause 47

GRANTS TO VOLUNTARY ORGANISATIONS

Lords amendment: No. 43, in page 30, line 12, at end insert—
() Each constituent council in Greater London or a metropolitan county shall exercise its functions under this section, and under any scheme made under this section, with due regard to the needs of the whole of Greater London or that county, as the case may be, and each scheme shall provide for those needs to be kept under review.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may take the following: Lords amendment No. 44, after clause 47, insert the following new clause—

GRANTS BY RESIDUARY BODIES

—(1) The Secretary of State may by order provide for the making of grants to eligible charities out of money received from the disposal of land by the residuary bodies established by Part VII of this Act.

(2) In this section "eligible charity" means, in relation to a residuary body, a body of persons or trust established for charitable purposes only, being purposes which are wholly or primarily for the benefit of the area for which the residuary body is established."

and the amendments thereto:

(a) in line 2, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.

(b) in line 3, leave out 'eligible charities" and insert `voluntary organisations'.

(c) in line 6, leave out subsection (2) and add

(2) And order under subsection (1) above shall provide that so far as is practicable the total expenditure of each residuary body under this section shall be no less in real terms than the total expenditure on grants to voluntary organisations of the Greater London Council or a metropolitan county council as the case may be, in the area of that residuary body in the financial year 1985/86.

(3) In this section "voluntary organisation" has the same meaning as in section 47 above.'.

Lords amendment No. 57, in page 67, line 7, at end Insert—

"() consider whether it is desirable that a scheme under section 47 or (Research and Collection of Information) above, or schemes under both those sections, should be made by those councils and, if of that opinion, promote the making of such a scheme or such schemes;"

Sir George Young: The provisions in the Bill dealing with support to voluntary bodies have developed and have improved during the Bill's passage. I am grateful to those voluntary organisations that have come to discuss with Ministers in my Department the provisions of the Bill. We are indebted to them for many of the improvements that we have now introduced.
In this House we revised clause 47 extensively to meet the points that had been put to us. In the other place the additional change provided for by amendment No. 43 was a response to further suggestions that were put to us by the voluntary sector. There has been concern that, in the absence of the GLC and, to a lesser extent, the metropolitan counties, grant-giving by the local authorities would operate in what would be seen to be a policy vacuum. The Government did not wholly share that fear. It seemed to us that it would be no more than normal local authority practice to operate arrangements for grant-giving under arrangements that would take account of the priorities and needs of the areas concerned. We had to recognise, however, that the concern of the voluntary sector was acute on this point and thus, when an amendment was put forward on Report in another place seeking to have annual reviews made of the needs of the whole area involved in schemes under clause 47, my noble Friend undertook to consider that point. This he did, and amendment No. 43 was put forward by the Government and agreed to on Third Reading in the other place.
I believe that this change to clause 47 has been warmly welcomed by the voluntary sector because it provides two useful additions to the operations of clause 47. First, it

ensures that in all aspects of operating the scheme all the constituent councils have to have regard to the needs of the whole area. That is a strong reinforcement of what we had always intended should happen. Secondly, it requiresd each scheme to contain provisions for those needs to be kept under review. This is not a mechanical annual review, as some have sought, but a continuing obligation to respond to changes and developments. I hope that the House will welcome the amendment in the same way that it was welcomed in another place.
Lords amendment No. 57 meets a concern expressed by the voluntary sector in the metropolitan counties. The London boroughs have been very quick off the mark to start making arrangements for funding the Londonwide organisaions. Richmond council has taken the task of acting as lead borough, and has already been in touch with over 800 such organisations. In the metropolitan counties, the districts have, unfortunately, not been quite so quick to get going.
Specifically at the request of the Manchester council for voluntary organisations we have included a provison that will require the joint organising committees to consider the desirability of setting up collective arrangements. This will give the districts a prompt, if they need one. Assuming that they agree that the scheme is a good idea, they will then be required to promote its setting up. I hope that the House will join me in supporting what is another useful addition to the provisions for the voluntary organisations.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I sent the Secretary of State details of the concern felt by voluntary organisations in Greater Manchester. They are looking for a clear guarantee that they will be protected. The Minister knows that there are daunting difficulties facing voluntary organisations in Greater Manchester not least because the statutory organisations find it increasingly difficult to carry out their legal duties. What guarantee can the hon. Gentleman give voluntary organisations in Greater Manchester tonight?

Sir George Young: I am very grateful to Mr. Henry West, who has visited Ministers in my Department on several occasions to relay exactly the concerns outlined by the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that the district councils will avail themselves of the transitional funds that the Government have made available to help local organisations, which at present receive funding from the Greater Manchester council. It is precisely to meet their needs that we have increased to £20 million the amount of transitional funding. I hope that the district councils in the Greater Manchester area will get together soon to decide their priorities for next year. If they want to bid for the £20 million, they should not lose too much time in so doing. The Government are aware of those concerns. They have been forcefully put to us by Mr. Henry West and others, and the Government have increased the transitional arrangements to safeguard the well-being of the worthwhile organisations in Manchester.
Lords amendment No. 44 is the other provision relating to grants for voluntary bodies. The Opposition have tabled an amendment, but first I wish to explain the intention of their Lordships. The amendment introduces a new clause designed to enable funds to be provided for endowing a new trust for London, but the provision is not limited to London alone; it would allow similar arrangements to be


made in the other metropolitan areas if there were sufficient surplus assets arising in those areas. The unallocated assets of the GLC will pass to the London residuary body on 1 April next year. From the proceeds of disposing of those assets the endowments will be made. The Secretary of State will make orders providing for the making of payments by the residuary body to charitable trusts whose purpose is to benefit the area concerned. This endowment for the new trust for London will be new money for the voluntary sector in London. Initially, we estimate that £10 million could be transferred from the GLC's surplus assets, and we intend that this should be added to by corporate and other private contributions.
However, the funds made available to the new trust will build up over time. Depending on the rate and scale at which the London residuary body is able to realise the surplus assets, the clause will enable the Secretary of State to provide by order for payments to be made to the trust. Needless to say, the proposal was welcomed by everybody who has an interest in the future of London's voluntary bodies.
The Opposition have tabled a number of amendments to these proposals, but I must say that I cannot advise the House to accept them, first because they would require the Secretary of State to provide for as much grant-giving as the GLC and the metropolitan counties are providing in 1985–86. That would be on top of the arrangements for collective grant-giving by the boroughs already provided for in the Bill; it would be on top of the Government's special programme of £20 million of grant aid for local groups and it would be on top of whatever else the boroughs individually decided to spend. That is an unrealistic proposal.
Other parts of the Opposition's amendments would require the Secretary of State to order money to be transferred to voluntary organisations. We have already made it clear that we shall do this in London. The metropolitan counties will have to await a proper assessment of the size of surplus of ex-MCC assets. The surplus may be small and it would be wrong to promise what could not be delivered. The authorities have been in existence for only a comparatively short time, but we do not rule out altogether the possibility of a surplus. The clause has been drafted to allow provision to be made in the met areas if it emerges that there is a basis for so doing.
The Opposition seek to change the definition of the groups that are eligible to receive the proceeds of ex-GLC or ex-MCC assets from the residuary bodies. That amendment would make almost any non-profit-making body eligible. It is our intention that large capital sums — I have mentioned £10 million — that have been accumulated at the expense of ratepayers in London or elsewhere should be paid over only to properly established trusts that have been set up to meet the needs of the area concerned. I am sure that we should retain the requirement that their Lordships have proposed.
The trust, when it is set up, will be able to fund voluntary organisations as more broadly defined by the amendment, but in the first instance we think it right that the funds should transfer to a body as we have defined it in the amendment. We shall listen, of course, to what Opposition Members have to say about their ideas but it seems that they want to turn the residuary body into a substitute general purpose grant-giving body under the direction of the Secretary of State. That would be inappropriate.
I think that it is generally acknowledged that when we introduced the Bill many voluntary bodies were disturbed. They saw the councils that funded them being demolished and they were uncertain about who would fund them after 1986. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and other Ministers in the Department are aware of the voluntary organisations' fears and uncertainties because we have indulged in lengthy consultations with the NCVO, the LVSC and other voluntary bodies. We have met them on many occasions and from our discussions with them, and our understanding of their fears and anxieties, we have been able substantially to reassure them. We have taken on board many of their suggestions for improving the Bill. We have provided for encouragement and assistance, such as the large increase in transitional support from the £5 million we proposed originally to the £20 million that is now on offer.
Equally importantly, the voluntary sector has been able to learn more about what we, the Government, propose. We have been able to explain to voluntary organisations what we are doing to see through our commitment that good voluntary projects should not lose out as a result of abolition. Two significant proposals will ensure that successor authorities can take over the funding of the voluntary bodies. There will be collective funding by districts and boroughs for county and Londonwide groups with £20 million more of local projects to receive aid via the districts. Over and above that, the trust for London will be endowed with at least £10 million. There are possibilities of others in the mets being so endowed if resources allow.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Minister explain to the House that £20 million of Government money will not be handed over? That is the impression that he tends to give when speaking on this subject. The Government will be giving permission for the boroughs and districts to spend £20 million of their own money, which they will be hard put to raise anyway because of rate capping.

Sir George Young: It is £20 million of projects that are funded by voluntary oranisations that are eligible for transitional funding. Support from the Government will be phased from £75 per cent. tapering over four years. If the hon. Gentleman reads the reports of what I said in Committee and on the Floor of the House, he will see that I have always been open about the degree of assistance and support that the Government will provide.
Our exchanges with the voluntary bodies have been fruitful and it is my distinct impression that the voluntary organisations in London and in the mets are now much more confident about the future. Such uncertainty as still remains stems almost entirely from the attitude that has been taken by the Labour party, which has refused so far to take part in the preparations for the London collective scheme. It is still striving to ensure that information that is needed desperately to allow grants to be made to voluntary organisations next year is not available. Only last month, when asked by Wirral and Sefton to release such information for Merseyside, councillor Keva Coombes got solid Labour support for continued refusal to discuss that issue.
The true friends of the voluntary sector are on the Conservative Benches, and voluntary bodies will not be deceived by the superficial show of concern on the Opposition Benches. I hope that the House will support the Lords amendments and resist the Opposition amendments.

Mr. Allan Roberts: I should like to discuss our amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 44, and I hope that we shall be able to vote on it at the end of the debate.
If the Minister believes that the voluntary sector has welcomed what the Government did in the other place, and honestly believes that the voluntary sector has been substantially reassured, I can assure him that he is talking to a different voluntary sector from the one that has talked to me and my right hon. and hon. Friends. People in the voluntary sector are still disturbed and concerned. Indeed, many are till angry about the Government's proposals, despite the amendments in the other place. If the Government claim that there is adequate money in the arrangements that have been made to replace the grant-giving powers of the GLC and metropolitan counties, they are not deceiving Opposition Members, they are not deceiving the general public and they are certainly not deceiving the voluntary sector.
Let us look at exactly what happened in the other place and at what the amendments do. First, there is the trust that the Government are establishing. It will receive money from the residuary bodies, which have been set up to sell off the assets of the metropolitan counties and the GLC. That is the vindictive part of the Lords amendments. The Government are obsessed with getting rid of County hall, and selling off the assets that belong to the GLC and the metropolitan counties. They especially want to get rid of County hall as the London symbol of democracy throughout the capital, a symbol that has existed for many years.
In trying to pretend to the voluntary organisations that the sale of assets will produce a large amount of money that can be handed over to the trust to be used for the voluntary sector, the Government do not say where the 32 of the 42 functions, which will be run on a countywide basis under the legislation, will be run and administered from. If County hall is sold—which I doubt will happen — where will ILEA go? ILEA has done its sums, and has estimated that it would cost at least £100 million for it to move out and find other premises. There will not be the bonanza from asset selling by the residuary bodies because all the joint bodies and other quangos that the Government are establishing will need to be housed in not less but more office space than is used at present by the metropolitan counties and the GLC.
The Government envisage that £10 million will be given to the trust at first. That will be invested, and 10 per cent. interest a year will give £1 million. That is mere chicken feed compared with what the GLC and the metropolitan counties now give to voluntary organisations. It does not allay any of the fears that have been expressed.
Let us look at what the trust is. It will not be democratically accountable. It may not have representatives of the voluntary movement on it. Who will the Minister appoint to the trust? There are rumours that existing foundations such as the City. Parochial Foundation might be given the job; that would reassure the voluntary sector to some extent. Will the trust be established by the Government, and appointed by a body of do-gooders to ensure that no controversial grants are given? That is where the prejudice comes in. I was in the Committee on the Bill, and the only argument from Conservative

Members in favour of abolition—because they could not prove their case on the basis of cost—was prejudice, particularly against the controversial grants given by the GLC and the metropolitan counties. Will the trust be an anodyne group of Conservative do-gooders, specially appointed to do the Government's bidding?
In our amendment we substitute the phrase "eligible charities" for "voluntary organisations". The fears of many voluntary organisations, which receive grants from the GLC and metropolitan counties but which are not charitable bodies, have not been allayed by the Government's proposal. The GLC and metropolitan counties do a great deal of work in unemployment centres, but those centres do not qualify under the Lords amendment because they are not charitable bodies. Many co-operatives and women's organisations will not qualify. The Minister referred to the Richmond scheme. Its proposals have already been published in draft form and exclude grants to women's groups. That sort of thing is already beginning to happen.
With the amendment the Government vindictively seek to force the sale of assets. It is clever conservatism to be vindictive towards metropolitan authorities, and to take their assets and show care by giving those assets to the voluntary sector. In that way the Government are trying to get the voluntary sector to go along with them, and to see some advantage in being vindictive towards the metropolitan authorities. However, people in the voluntary sector know that those authorities are their genuine friends because those authorities have given them cash, money and support, and the Government have given them nothing but false promises.

Mrs. Angela Rumbold: I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would tell me what he considers a voluntary body to be. Is it a body which receives money from the Government to do the Government's bidding, or one which is doing work for the community, and which, in my view, should not be paid anything by the Government?

Mr. Roberts: My definition of a voluntary body is a non-statutory, non-profit making body which contributes to the welfare of the community, such as many non-charitable women's groups, black groups and groups that work with the unemployed. This includes many groups against which Conservative Members are prejudiced. They are voluntary groups, but not necessarily of charitable status, just as some voluntary housing associations are of charitable status and some are not.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will my hon. Friend comment on what the Minister said about the Tories being the friends of the voluntary sector, when in 1984–85 the GLC is providing grants totalling about £60 million to voluntary organisations? How does that compare with the sum that the Government are prepared to provide?

Mr. Roberts: The Government are providing chicken feed compared with the GLC, and the same story is true throughout the metropolitan counties.
The Minister made great play of the increase in the transitional money, as though the Government were providing a great deal of money for that four-year period. When the Bill was first published the Government were to provide £10 million or, to be exact, £7·5 million, and the remainder was to come from local authorities. Then,


because of the pressure of the voluntary sector, the figure was increased to £20 million. We can draw a picture of the municipal bill run up by the Conservatives— from £10 million, to £20 million, and closing at £40 million. That is their last offer. What does that mean? In the first year the Government will provide £15 million for the GLC and the metropolitan counties, and the local authorities must find £5 million. In the second and third years both the Government and local authorities must provide £10 million. In the fourth year both the Government and the local authorities must provide £5 million. That is not exactly a windfall for local authorities, nor is it a great deal of money for the many voluntary organisations operating in those areas.

Mr. Alfred Morris: My hon. Friend put an important point in making it clear that our concern is not only with voluntary organisations—properly so-called. The Royal Exchange theatre company in Manchester has made clear to hon. Members from the Greater Manchester area that, without the £548,000 which it receives this year from the Greater Manchester council, the theatre will have to close. What kind of guarantee can we give the company about its future?

Mr. Roberts: Of course, the Government cannot provide guarantees. They have studiously avoided providing guarantees while mouthing platitudes about how they are trying to assist voluntary organisations.
The district councils and London boroughs are already rate capped, and will have to take over many functions after abolition, for which the Government will not provide extra rate support grants, yet they must find part of the transitional £40 million. They will be unable to meet all the needs, and will certainly be unable to meet the many requirements of the voluntary sector unless the Government undertake to provide the necessary money.
Another minor amendment tabled by the Government —many of them were probably drafted by the Minister —related to the concession that, in the first year of the collective scheme—the Minister praised the Richmond initiative—if two-thirds of the boroughs agreed to grant money to a countywide voluntary organisation, all the boroughs must contribute to it. However, the Government placed a ceiling on the amount that could be given, although for the first year they said that they would not use their powers to impose such a ceiling. That is not reassuring, because the Government are retaining their draconian, ministerial powers, as they have done throughout the Bill, to set ceilings and to control the amount of money that even the so-called democratically liberated London boroughs and metropolitan county councils will be able to give to voluntary organisations.
The Minister made much of Lords amendment No. 43, but it is extremely vague. It asks the boroughs to set up a review of social needs with due regard for the entire metropolitan county and GLC areas. What will be the result of such a review? The Minister rightly referred to the criticism from voluntary organisations they they will be unable to operate within comprehensive political or strategic frameworks. At present, the GLC and the metropolitan counties meet representatives of the voluntary movement and thrash out a set of policies, in relation to funding the voluntary sector, which operate within the terms of reference of each local authority's strategy. The trust cannot do that, because it has no other

functions or powers. Many local authorities will come together to review social needs, but they all have differing views. I assure the House that Sefton council has a different view of the social needs of Merseyside from the views of Liverpool city council and Knowsley council. The trust will be no substitute for the present system.
We said in Committee that their Lordships said that the Government have failed to prove that administrative savings can be made in services by getting id of bureaucracy. We were told that many services, including waste disposal, firemen and file police, would cost more. However, we now know that the cuts will be made in the voluntary sector. The Government were motivated to attack the GLC and the metropolitan counties because they wanted to cut the amount of money given to voluntary organisations. They did not like the way in which local government was setting new trends in encouraging community activity, bringing people closer together, working closely' with the Labour local authorities to improve conditions in their communities and pioneering in the traditional local government way. They knew that the spin-off would be support for the Labour party, and that is why they are so vindictive against the GLC and the metropolitan counties. That is why they are attacking the voluntary sector.
These Lords amendments are prejudiced and spiteful. The Government's abolition proposals are based on prejudice and spite, and this attack on the voluntary sector is a prime example of it. Although Ministers try to put on a pleasant face, Conservative Back-Bench Members show their prejudice every time we mention the GLC, the metropolitan counties, or the giving of grants to the voluntary sector. I urge the House to reject the Lords amendments, which will not provide adequate support for the voluntary sector, and to accept the Opposition amendments.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: We debate the amendment against the background of an extraordinary expansion in Exchequer and other public support for the voluntary sector. Gradually the partnership between the voluntary sector and the Government is becoming a genuine third force. Many of us who have worked in the voluntary sector have hoped for that for many years.
Such a partnership involves enormous difficulties. The whole point of the voluntary sector—whether charitable or non-charitable — is that it should be free to move where it will and to do those things which it sees are needed, particularly if the statutory sector does not recognise a paramount need. Too much of the voluntary sector is being sucked into the statutory sector simply because the money is made available to it and it therefore follows the money.
That is not necessarily bad, but I hope the Minister can reassure us that, after the long, constructive and hard-working sessions with the voluntary sector, he will ensure that we have a much clearer idea of those activities which the Government of the day believe appropriate to be done by the voluntary sector. Let us make no mistake. The voluntary and charitable sectors can take on able staff to operate under a Government grant which is often taken away after only a short time because of changes in political control or in the ability of the statutory sector to meet the


need. I hope that as a result of the current painful discussions a more coherent strategy for the future will emerge.

Mr. Dobson: If that third force does not receive funds from the public sector, where will the funds come from?

Mr. Rowe: An enormous amount of public money is spent in that direction through tax concessions and other means. Increasingly, money is provided through a wide range of other sources, including the private sector, which in many ways is a healthier source of support than the state. What is more, the changes in the law governing covenants by the present Government have resulted in an increase in the amount of individual contributions, which I welcome.
The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts), gave the show away because, although much of the money spent by the metropolitan authorities and the GLC has been spent in a pioneering way, too often it has been spent in such a way that pioneering has taken precedence over responsibility. Some pioneering groups have been incompetently managed and have been unable to perform the tasks which they were paid to perform.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Local authorities have always spent money on publicising their policies and ideas. The Government object, not to that, but to the fact that the metropolitan counties and the GLC are publicising their ideas successfully. That is why they object to their grants policy. The objection is not that they have failed, but that they have been successful.

Mr. Rowe: That is not why I object. I do not object to some of the experiments that have been carried out, but I do object to frantically increasing expenditure for no purpose other than to bind groups of diverse kinds and activities to the Labour party. That is the nub of the question. Many of the groups that have been funded had worthy aspirations and may derive from areas in which, because there are difficulties, they may have been able to appeal to sympathy or shame to get funding. When they have failed to deliver the goods, the result has too often been a desire to give them more money because the poor things failed to deliver the goods last time as they did not have sufficient money. In the budget for 1984–85 the GLC in particular delivered a cynical exercise in trying to bind to the Labour party the support of a wide variety of groups, some of which were undoubtedly worthy of support but many of which were not.
I support the Government amendments, but I urge the Government to take pains to build on the hard work that they have done so far to ensure a much more predictable pattern of partnership between the Government and the voluntary sector.

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: Because time is short I shall concentrate on the amendments proposed to Lords amendment No. 44. In the prevailing atmosphere of impending doom, I welcome the Richmond initiative to get the two thirds rule. My experience of district co-ordination in the voluntary sector is not encouraging. The two thirds rule will not breed harmony and light among the districts because those who are not

party to the two thirds but are part of the one third or some smaller proportion, will not contribute willingly or with a warm heart.
The crux of the matter is the definition. If one restricts the definition to charitable organisations, one excludes a whole area of the voluntary sector which in some respects has been the most innovative, experimental and beneficial in recent years. To restrict matters entirely to those who fulfil the definition of "charitable" will exclude new groups which cannot, at the beginning of their lives, achieve charitable status. It will not be easy for the Government to discover a means of determining whether a group is charitable or not, in law short of registration with the Charity Commissioners. Those who have been involved in this area for many years will know that it is a legal minefield. It is not easy to determine whether a group is charitable or not, and the Charity Commissioners have great difficulty in doing so. There are many organisations which I believe are charitable but which do not have charitable definition and registration with the Charity Commissioners. In the past I have managed to get tax relief for many bodies which are not registered with the Charity Commissioners but which the Inland Revenue regards as charitable.
Another area which will be deprived is that of co-ordination of voluntary work. The councils of voluntary service which facilitate collaboration between voluntary and statutory bodies often find it difficult to achieve charitable status because the Charity Commissioners are loth to give that status to bodies that simply co-ordinate the activities of other voluntary organisations. A whole area with which many Conservative-controlled authorities are happy to work will be cut out from this definition and they will find their work extremely constricted.
Any attempt at such restriction runs counter not only to local government tradition and to the work that the local authorities have done for many years in endeavouring to pump-prime and to assist experimentation and innovation by not confining themselves to the use of charitable bodies. It also runs counter to central Government intentions and central Government tradition. An examination of grant-giving patterns under clause 64 from the DHSS or from the voluntary service unit of the Home Office and the urban programme and the partnership authorities, shows that most of those grants which are beneficial and accepted as such by Conservative Members do not go to those bodies which are deemed in law to be charitable. I cannot understand why the Government wish to cut off from grant aid under this heading those bodies to which they had willingly and voluntarily given support for many years.
The sums of money involved that have been quoted sound large but, for many reasons, the sums of money going through this third arm is extremely large. The sums being quoted are nowhere near enough to accommodate what is happening. For example, there is a housing project in Bradford with which I was associated when I was involved in the voluntary sector there which is costing £2 million. The turnover of some large city bodies is beyond the sums being quoted.
My experience suggests that the Government's policy will seriously harm the voluntary sector. Innovations and experiments will inevitably be deprived. It is not so much whether Conservative or Labour Members are the friends of the voluntary sector—from what I have heard today, the Government want to constrict local authorities and


Labour wants to control them. Neither is the right approach. The proposals of the Government and the other place are defective and I urge the House to accept the amendments to the Lords amendment.

Mr. Roland Boyes: Through rate-capping and penalties, the Government have hit local authorities hard, and feeding cash into voluntary organisations will be ever more difficult. Local people are proud of Tyne and Wear metropolitan county council because it has helped and funded voluntary organisations. However, it now seems that there will be a distinction between Conservative-controlled shire counties and Labour-controlled metropolitan authorities.
Under section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972, district and county councils can each raise 2p with which to fund organisations and projects. Metropolitan counties are also able to raise a 2p rate for the dame purpose, so in an area covered by a metropolitan county council 4p is raised under section 137. If Tyne and Wear county council is abolished, however, only 2p will be raised for that purpose. Because the shire counties, which are predominantly Conservative controlled, will continue to exist, areas covered by them will continue to exist, areas covered by them will continue to levy 4p under section 137. In other words, Conservative-controlled areas will have much more money with which to fund voluntary organisations. If that is not political vindictiveness, I do not know what is. The Minister and the Secretary of State should reconsider and let boroughs in metropolitan county areas raise a 4p rate under section 137.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 44, after clause 47, insert the following new clause—

Grants by residuary bodies

.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order provide for the making of grants to eligible charities out of money received from the disposal of land by the residuary bodies established by Part VII of this Act.

(2) In this section "eligible charity" means, in relation to a residuary body, a body of persons or trust established for charitable purposes only, being purposes which are wholly or primarily for the benefit of the area for which the residuary body is established."

Read a Second time.

Amendment (a) proposed to the Lords amendment: in line 2, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'. — [Mr. Allan Roberts.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 195, Noes 320.

Division No. 260]
[9.59 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Alton, David
Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)


Anderson, Donald
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)


Ashdown, Paddy
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)


Ashton, Joe
Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bruce, Malcolm


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Buchan, Norman


Barnett, Guy
Caborn, Richard


Barron, Kevin
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Campbell, Ian


Beith, A. J.
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Benn, Tony
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Cartwright, John


Bermingham, Gerald
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Bidwell, Sydney
Clarke, Thomas


Blair, Anthony
Clay, Robert


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Boyes, Roland
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)





Cohen, Harry
Litherland, Robert


Coleman, Donald
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Conlan, Bernard
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Loyden, Edward


Cook, Robin F (Livingston)
McCartney, Hugh


Corbett, Robin
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Corbyn, Jeremy
McKelvey, William


Cowans, Harry
McNamara, Kevin


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
McTaggart, Robert


Craigen, J. M.
McWilliam, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Madden, Max


Dalyell, Tam
Marek, Dr John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Maxton, John


Deakins, Eric
Maynard, Miss Joan


Dewar, Donald
Meacher, Michael


Dixon, Donald
Meadowcroft, Michael


Dobson, Frank
Michie, William


Dormand, Jack
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Dubs, Alfred
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Eadie, Alex
Nellist, David


Eastham, Ken
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Edwards, Bob (Wh'mpt'n SE)
O'Brien, William


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
O'Neill, Martin


Ewing, Harry
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Fatchett, Derek
Park, George


Faulds, Andrew
Parry, Robert


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Patchett, Terry


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Pavitt, Laurie


Fisher, Mark
Penhaligon, David


Flannery, Martin
Pike, Peter


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Forrester, John
Prescott, John


Foster, Derek
Radice, Giles


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Randall, Stuart


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Redmond, M.


Freud, Clement
Flees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Garrett, W. E.
Richardson, Ms Jo


George, Bruce
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Godman, Dr Norman
Robertson, George


Golding, John
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Gould, Bryan
Rogers, Allan


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Rooker, J. W.


Hancock, Mr. Michael
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Hardy, Peter
Rowlands, Ted


Harman, Ms Harriet
Sedgemore, Brian


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Sheerman, Barry


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Haynes, Frank
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Heffer, Eric S.
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Home Robertson, John
Skinner, Dennis


Howells, Geraint
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Hoyle, Douglas
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Snape, Peter


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Soley, Clive


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Hughes, Simon (Southward)
Stott, Roger


Janner, Hon Greville
Strang, Gavin


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)
Straw, Jack


John, Brynmor
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Johnston, Sir Russell
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Tinn, James


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Torney, Tom


Kennedy, Charles
Wainwright, R.


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Wallace, James


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Kirkwood, Archy
Wareing, Robert


Lambie, David
Weetch, Ken


Lamond, James
White, James


Leighton, Ronald
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Winnick, David


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Woodall, Alec






Young, David (Bolton SE)
Mr. Allen McKay and



Mr. Sean Hughes.


Tellers for the Ayes:



NOES


Adley, Robert
Dunn, Robert


Aitken, Jonathan
Durant, Tony


Alexander, Richard
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Eggar, Tirn


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Emery, Sir Peter


Amess, David
Evennett, David


Ancram, Michael
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Ashby, David
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Aspinwall, Jack
Fallon, Michael


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Farr, Sir John


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Favell, Anthony


Atkinson, David (B'rn'th E)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Fletcher, Alexander


Baldry, Tony
Fookes, Miss Janet


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Forman, Nigel


Batiste, Spencer
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bellingham, Henry
Forth, Eric


Bendall, Vivian
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bennett, Rt Hon Sir Frederic
Fox, Marcus


Benyon, William
Franks, Cecil


Best, Keith
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Freeman, Roger


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fry, Peter


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Gale, Roger


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Galley, Roy


Body, Richard
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Bottomley, Peter
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Goodlad, Alastair


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gow, Ian


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Gower, Sir Raymond


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Grant, Sir Anthony


Bright, Graham
Greenway, Harry


Brinton, Tim
Gregory, Conal


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Griffiths, Sir Eldon


Brooke, Hon Peter
Griffiths, Peter (Portsrn'th N)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Grist, Ian


Bruinvels, Peter
Grylls, Michael


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Buck, Sir Antony
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Budgen, Nick
Hampson, Dr Keith


Burt, Alistair
Hannam,John


Butcher, John
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Butler, Hon Adam
Harris, David


Butterfill, John
Haselhurst, Alan


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (Wton S)
Hawksley, Warren


Carttiss, Michael
Hayes, J.


Cash, William
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Chapman, Sydney
Heddle, John


Chope, Christopher
Henderson, Barry


Churchill, W. S.
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Hickmet, Richard


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hind, Kenneth


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hirst, Michael


Clegg, Sir Walter
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Cockeram, Eric
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Colvin, Michael
Holt, Richard


Coombs, Simon
Hordern, Sir Peter


Cope, John
Howard, Michael


Corrie, John
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Couchman, James
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Cranborne, Viscount
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Crouch, David
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Dicks, Terry
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Dorrell, Stephen
Hunter, Andrew


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Irving, Charles


Dover, Den
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Jessel Toby





Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Raffan, Keith


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Key, Robert
Rathbone, Tim


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Renton, Tim


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Rhodes James, Robert


Knowles, Michael
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Lamont, Norman
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lang, Ian
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Latham, Michael
Rifkind, Malcolm


Lawler, Geoffrey
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Rost, Peter


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Rowe, Andrew


Lightbown, David
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Ryder, Richard


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Lord, Michael
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lyell, Nicholas
Scott, Nicholas


McCrindle, Robert
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Macfarlane, Neil
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Shersby, Michael


Maclean, David John
Silvester, Fred


McQuarrie, Albert
Sims, Roger


Madel, David
Skeet, T. H. H.


Major, John
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Malins, Humfrey
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Malone, Gerald
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Maples, John
Speller, Tony


Marland, Paul
Spencer, Derek


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Mates, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Maude, Hon Francis
Squire, Robin


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stanbrook, Ivor


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stanley, John


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Steen, Anthony


Mellor, David
Stern, Michael


Merchant, Piers
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Stokes, John


Moate, Roger
Stradling Thomas, J.


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Sumberg, David


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Moore, John
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Moynihan, Hon C.
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Mudd, David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Murphy, Christopher
Terlezki, Stefan


Neale, Gerrard
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Needham, Richard
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Neubert, Michael
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Newton, Tony
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Nicholls, Patrick
Thornton, Malcolm


Norris, Steven
Thurnham, Peter


Onslow, Cranley
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Tracey, Richard


Osborn, Sir John
Trippier, David


Ottaway, Richard
Trotter, Neville


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Parris, Matthew
Viggers, Peter


Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abdgn)
Waddington, David


Pattie, Geoffrey
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Walden, George


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Pollock, Alexander
Wall, Sir Patrick


Portillo, Michael
Waller, Gary


Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Ward, John


Powell, William (Corby)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Powley, John
Watson, John


Price, Sir David
Watts, John






Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)
Woodcock, Michael


Wheeler, John
Yeo, Tim


Whitfield, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Whitney, Raymond



Wiggin, Jerry
Tellers for the Noes:


Wolfson, Mark
Mr. Carol Mather and


Wood, Timothy
Mr. Robert Boscawen.

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER, proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Lords amendments Nos. 44 to 47 agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Local Government Bill

Clause 55

ESTABLISHMENT OF RESIDUARY BODIES

Lords amendment: No. 48, in page 38, line 38, at end insert—
(4) As soon as may be after the establishment of a joint committee under section 93 below for Greater London or a metropolitan county the Secretary of State shall, after consultation with that committee, appoint one of its members to be a member of the appropriate residuary body.
Read a Second time.

Mr. Straw: I beg to move, amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, in line 4, leave out ', after consultation with that committee.'.
I understand that we are to discuss also amendment (b) to the Lords amendment.
By amendment No. 48, which I understand was moved in the other place by the Government, it is proposed that the residuary body for London and those for the other areas should have added to their membership one of the members of the joint committee established under clause 93. By our amendments we propose that the Secretary of State should be required to appoint to the total number of members of the residuary body such members as are nominated to it by the joint committees of the local authorities. It is delightful to have the rapt attention of the House at 10.15 pm on such a scintillating topic. I repeat that it is possible, judging by the form of the earlier votes, that we will lose this vote.
So scintillating are my words that Mr. Speaker has moved out of the Chair. It is delightful to see Mr. Deputy Speaker back in the Chair. I thank Mr. Speaker for his rapt attention on this issue. Although I hope that it is not, this issue may be the last occasion on which we have a substantive debate. I hope that their Lordships will do their duty.
I should like to place on record, on behalf of my hon. Friends and myself, my thanks to the people who have briefed us over the last 18 months on the many issues of the Bill. Even the Minister will accept that not only have we won the arguments on the Bill and on the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Act but, unquestionably, as many Conservative Members have said, that we have been better briefed. The main reason for that is that there have been excellent briefing arrangements with both the GLC and the metropolitan counties parliamentary unit. We could not have advanced the arguments and turned what was seen by the Government as an electoral advantage into an electoral disadvantage had it not been for the work of people such as Damien Welfare and Richard Percival of the Greater London council and David Burton and Rodney Jones of the metropolitan counties parliamentary unit and their supporting staffs, and the leaders of the counties and the GLC, to whom we are all grateful.
10.15 pm
When the Bill was originally published, the residuary bodies were seen as bodies which would have merely wrap-up and technical functions. The Government suddenly realised that, although their intent was to snap out the light of the GLC and the metropolitan counties

immediately on vesting day, on 1 April 1986, that would not be possible, and therefore there would have to be life after death for the councils, but the Government would try to limit that as far as they could. It was initially envisaged that the residuary body would have a role for superannuation, debt, central facilities and support.
As the Bill has progressed, the Government have had to face the fact that there will continue to be a countywide operation of many services and that in preparing the Bill in such haste and with such venom, and refusing to look at the good work of the GLC and the metropolitan counties, a great many specialist services provided by the councils, often unnoticed and unsung, were overlooked. Those services may be unnoticed at the moment, but were they to be abolished their absence would soon be noticed.
Such services had to be given a parent body and the Government realised that it would not be possible to provide for their control by districts, because they could not operate at district level, and the Government found it inappropriate to set up joint boards. Following the excellent report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology of the other place, the Government have widened the role of residuary bodies and these are now to provide professional and technical services to the successor authorities.
We welcome the wider role given to the residuary bodies, as far as it goes, and the fact that the services which faced a break-up and annihiliation are to continue. It is worth quoting, as I think I am allowed to do, the view of the Select Committee on Science and Technology of the other place. It said:
the Committee repeat their conviction that the administration of local goverment in Greater London and the metropolitan counties depends for its effectiveness on preserving the integrity of many of the specialist services built up by the GLC and the county councils. These authorities have demonstrated their ability to respond positively to the challenge of scientific and technical development. Further challenges lie ahead. The great conurbations require specialist staff and facilities to meet them. Economic, efficient and forward-looking services demand excellence, integration and continuity. The existing services should be improved not by being dismembered, but by being encouraged to progress. Centres of excellence are slow to develop but easy to destroy.
They would have been destroyed had the Government's initial proposals remained in force. However, the residuary bodies will not be just clearing-up organisations. They will supervise the services that are to continue in existence for the local authorities within their area.
We have always objected to the fact that the residuary bodies were to be appointed by the Secretary of State. However, although we disagreed with that idea, we could see some logic in it, given that they had a residuary role to perform. Now that they are to have a continuing role to perform it is unacceptable that all their members should be appointed by the Secretary of State. He will undertake to run the local authority services in the areas of the Greater London council and the metropolitan counties. That is wrong. The Government tell us that their aim is to devolve powers to the local authorities. If so, they ought to accept this modest amendment, which would make the members of the residuary bodies the nominees of the new joint committees which they have established.

Mr. Simon Hughes: This is an important issue. Our position has been made clear in the debate: that directly elected authorities will


become indirectly elected authorities by means of this strange beast, a creature of the Government, the residuary body.
I wish to draw attention to two specific aspects of the problem, to which I hope the Minister will pay careful attention. It was said during the Report stage in the other place by the Minister of State's colleague, Lord Gowrie, that many of the people who are now employed by the Greater London council and the metropolitan county councils will be employed by the residuary bodies. In planning the handover— the amendments refer to the method of the handover—it is vital that as many jobs as possible should be preserved. Those with technical expertise are irreplaceable for servicing whatever services remain to be run on a metropolitan countywide or Greater London councilwide basis.
As the transition to the residuary bodies and the joint committees, as envisaged in amendment No. 48, is planned and as we consider the membership of the joint committees and their method of working, they should be given the task of reflecting upon the way in which they can most effectively implement the ring fencing of many of the posts by ensuring that they are offered to those who would like to continue to use their expertise in local government.
Disagreement has been expressed by some employees of the seven local authorities. As was mentioned by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), although many hon. Members have been well briefed by officers of the metropolitan counties and the GLC, sufficiently interested efforts have not been made by the unions representing those who are employed by the Greater London council and the metropolitan counties.
There have been notable exceptions. The Minister may remember that in Committee I moved amendments which, as he will know, emanated from NALGO in Greater London, and amendments were tabled in another place emanating from NALGO in the west midlands which were of interest and relevance to every person employed as a local government officer — people who were not supported by the NALGO national leadership. I say for the record, and without wishing to re-open old wounds, that many of the people in NALGO representing staff of the local authorities were disappointed that they were not better supported by their natural supporters, as they presume them, the Labour party, in this House and in the other place.
As I should like everybody to seek to remedy the position, I shall quote from Abolition News 6, a NALGO news bulletin produced by the west Midlands county branch abolition staff protection sub-committee dated only a couple of months ago. Indeed, there are later editions up to the most recent, Abolition News 8. Abolition News 6 says:
We were desperately disappointed with the Labour Party's showing. We had all hoped for some action on the staffing issues, yet it's become plain both in the Lords and in the earlier debate in the Commons that they are not interested in talking about staff. This is at odds with the Party locally, who are very understanding and, we believe, genuinely anxious to help as indeed are a number of our own Councillors. We are sure they feel rather let down as well.
It goes on to say, having condemned NALGO nationally, and commended my alliance partners and my party:
The Government, of course, are laughing. Not only have they avoided an embarrassment in the Lords, they have scored a number of points off the Opposition in doing so, and have managed to show the Labour peers' `concern' for staff.

It goes on to leave the members to judge for themselves the party's performance and the arguments about staffing.
The tragedy was that in the other place staffing came up on the day of the Ascot gold cup or some such important national event. Therefore, the Tory party decided to spin out the staffing debate, which is always less controversial, and got everybody back after Ascot for the crucial votes on the subsequent amendments concerning the residuary body. As, a result, there was no informed or expert debate there either.
The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist)—I warned him that I would mention him, and I hope that it does him no harm — has regularly and consistently argued the case for people employed in local government in the seven authorities in question. He has done so justifiably because the Government's figures at the beginning were clearly wrong, and they had not thought through the implications for staffing. We have been watching the draining away of experienced officers. I was talking the other day to a senior legal officer of the GLC who was watching his colleagues disappear, leaving for jobs which are certain as opposed to staying in jobs which are uncertain and without any definite future, and leaving behind the others to try to hold together the muddle that is of the Government's creation.
While it is clearly not in question that local government is about services, and the jobs are there to provide those services, the Government have not understood the need for those people who will be necessary in these after lives that the Government will have US create by the amendment. The joint committee and the subsequent residuary bodies are being prepared for that, and people are not being given the opportunity to apply.
My main criticism goes to the Government, but it also goes to NALGO nationally which voted, by way of resolution at the annual conference, that its staff and members should boycott subsequent bodies. With no vested interest, I beseech NALGO to change its mind. This is not in the interests of local government officers who have given months, years or decades of service to local government in some authorities which, whatever their history, are among the most competent and experienced authorities in Britain with the greatest expertise. It is not in the interest of the members of staff for the union to tell them that they must have nothing to do with the successor authority.

Mr. Tony Banks: Why does the hon. Gentleman think that the national conference of NALGO is any less concerned about its membership than he? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the union has decided that it has found the best way of protecting its members' jobs?

Mr. Hughes: I accept that the national conference of NALGO should be as concerned as I am. It should be more concerned, because it has a specific responsibility. However, if the Bill is enacted, the national conference will call for all-out industrial action. If it believes that that will advance the cause of its members, it is mistaken. I am not saying that the national conference is not interested. I am merely saying that its tactics are wrong and that I hope that it will think again. In the interests of the continuance of service in whatever form the Government have contrived to give us local government — a form for which no Opposition Member has argued—we want the best people doing the jobs that remain.
I plead with the Government to let the joint committee and the residuary body pass on early information on the jobs that will be left. Secondly, let those who represent the work force ensure that they allow its members to service theo successor bodies for the short interim period that will ensue. If the Bill is enacted without the Lords standing up to the Government again, we shall not have regional government in London. In the interim at least we shall have local government officers carrying on the services which were administered in readiness to re-enter a greater and better regional body which parties other than the Conservative party will bring about sooner than the Government would like.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I shall begin by referring to ring fencing and stating that for several years I was one of NALGO's two parliamentary advisers. Those were in the days when NALGO was composed far more of officers who served their councils rather than their political masters. The real danger is that NALGO is beginning to drift into political subservience. I am not so worried by the remarks of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) about some local government officer leaving the service. Some of the creatures appointed by Mr. Livingstone as assistant directors have been placed for their political knowledge. The sooner they go the better. In that way no one will have to pay compensation to them, unlike some of the creatures who were appointed to London Transport by Mr. Livingstone, to whom we had actually to pay money.
Having had experience of the previous reorganisation of local government, I appeal to NALGO and the staff union at county hall, which still exists despite the efforts of Livingstone and Co. to denigrate it, to remember that their first duty is to the public that they serve and the public that pay their salaries.

Mr. Tony Banks: Like they pay us.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: If the chairman of the GLC would care to intervene, I shall be delighted to give way to him.

Mr. Tony Banks: The hon Gentleman does not give way usually.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: The hon. Gentleman is too concerned about prostituting that high office that was once honourable actually to intervene.

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I ask the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) to withdraw his last comment. It is a complete reflection on me as a Member of the House.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: The office of chairman of the GLC has been a highly honourable one and I am talking of the office and not the holder. I can visualise Sir Isaac Hayward and Bill Fiske whirling round in their graves if they knew of the way in which the office was now being used. I withdraw nothing from what I have said.

Mr. Straw: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. There are rules concerning the use of unparliamentary language. Hon. Members heard the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) claim that another hon. Member was prostituting

an office that he holds. I submit that that is unparliamentary language and that the hon. Gentleman should be required to withdraw the expression.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): It may have been strong language, but there was nothing unparliamentary about what was said.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: If it will help, I certainly make it clear that I mean no personal imputation against the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who decorates functions in the City when he turns up in his limousine and white tie and tails.
It is important for the staff to have their future safeguarded. That means that the information required by the London boroughs and other organisations should be swiftly provided.

Mr. Nellist: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the staff should have their futures safeguarded? How many staff should have their futures safeguarded? To which services does he refer? At which level of which metropolitan county and the GLC should they be safeguarded? For 15 to 18 months during the passage of this and previous Bills neither the Secretary of State nor the Minister has said which workers in which departments in which county council have a future to be safeguarded.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: That is a reasonable intervention, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I say that I can speak only from my knowledge of London. Until the information is supplied in detail from county hall, no one can give an accurate answer.

Mr. Nellist: rose—

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I shall not give way again. The hon. Gentleman can speak later if he wishes. Until county hall responds to the questions which the boroughs have been asking for months, no one can give the detailed answers which the hon. Gentleman and many others would like. It is certain—this is on the record—that we shall not make the mistake that we made last time in the re-organisation of London local government, when everyone's job was automatically guaranteed and when my borough of Camden finished up with three directors of finance and with one town clerk and three associate town clerks. That will not happen again.
The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) raised the issue of ring fencing. At the moment, he is with his natural allies —the alliance—and I hope that he joins them soon. We need to ensure that the information comes forward. If NALGO is prepared to do the job that it once did, I believe that its members will co-operate.
The hon. Member for Blackburn quoted selectively, at great length, from the report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology. The report, which has been quoted three times already tonight, speaks in terms of deciding
to concentrate on a selection of case studies".
Who made the selection? The report states that it does not
touch in depth on the general subject of waste disposal".
It is an interim report. The inquiry is "incomplete". Most of the evidence is "as yet unpublished". The Committee did not wish to pre-empt its "final report". The document is valuable as a guide, but not as anything authoritative. The House would be well advised to do no more than look at it as a guide, and not as a bible.
The hon. Member for Blackburn referred to the residuary bodies. I am glad that they are to be self-destructive—the sooner the better. I am equally happy with the appointment of Sir Godfrey Taylor as the provisional chairman of the London residuary body. Two things will happen. First, the intention of the House that borough government shall predominate in London as quickly as possible will come about. Secondly, I believe that that particular residuary body—

Mr. Tony Banks: Earlier in his speech the hon. Gentleman referred to Mr. Livingstone appointing his creatures. Does he not feel that Sir Godfrey Taylor, as a rabid Tory, is just the creature of the Secretary of State?

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: There is a great difference between a paid civil servant in local government—

Mr. Tony Banks: I see.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: As the record of any Government will show, if one is appointing a body to carry out one's policy, one appoints the best qualified people. I remind the hon. Gentleman that some people might have thought it fairer if the Government had appointed Mr. Livingstone as chairman of the residuary body! Quite a few people might have said that! The difference between the chairman of such a body and a civil servant should be clear, even to the hon. Gentleman. Again, that is proof that the blurring of the lines between politics and civil servants and local government officers has gone too far.
I hope that the residuary bodies will do their work more swiftly than the Government envisage. I believe that in London at any rate we can look forward to a three-year rather than a five-year life. In the end what matters is the information coming out to the boroughs from county hall and the districts in the other metropolitan counties.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I should like to refer to residuary bodies as they apply to west Yorkshire. It is understandable why much of the debate has properly concentrated on London, as it seems to have done during all the discussions in the past year, but there are places away from London. West Yorkshire is one of them.
I should like to refer to some of the remarks made by the hon. Members for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) and for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate referred to NALGO. I was surprised at what he said. All that I know as a politician—and that is the reason why I am here — is that NALGO voted nine to one against affiliating to the Labour party. The hon. Gentleman also referred to his experience in the local government reforms of the past 20 years. I know that he has great experience. The first reform was in 1963, which set up the Greater London council. They got it wrong. I have always been sorry that Middlesex was abolished, for example. Whatever doorstep I go on in my county of west Yorkshire, in the old borough of Morley, which is now part of Leeds, nearly everybody tells me about their view of the mistake that was made in 1974. It looms much larger in those people's mind and experience than many of the issues that we raise on the Floor of the House. There is local feeling about local government reform.
In the House, we have a happy knack of getting it wrong. We get it wrong when we put the experts in, because the experts often know nothing about local

government, but think that they are translating the views of some large company, with marginal analysis on how to get things efficient and so on. But the people who know about the services that they get know that the House has made a mistake. We are now doing it in a completely different way, but we are making the same mistake, and equally getting it wrong. Nothing that I have heard in the past year will convince me otherwise.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I have been consistent throughout. I opposed the creation of the GLC from the very outset. I was a borough man in those days, and that is a view that I have always kept.

Mr. Rees: On that occasion, which was just before I went to Yorkshire, I had a feel for the old county of Middlesex and I thought that Herbert Morrison was not just being dog in a manger about the old London county council. He was right about it. It could have been changed in more appropriate ways than were used at the time. That is why I am glad to hear from my hon. Friends, especially our Front Bench, that we are not merely talking of recreating the GLC in future, but of creating a strategic body that will be studied afresh. The GLC was not right, and the way in which the Government are abolishing it is wrong.
I live in Bermondsey when I am in London, and I was surprised at the story of Tories going to Ascot. I am a devotee of the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley), and thought that all that had changed. I thought that those Tories were now sergeant-majors, suburbans, and the children of the people for whom the Lord Chancellor rang his handbell at conference years ago. I can only assume that some of the old gentlemen Tories are still present in the other place. They are the sort of chaps who do not make snide remarks at by-elections about the marital status of candidates. In other words they are gentlemen, whatever else they may be.
10.45 pm
When I first went to Yorkshire 25 years ago I was surprised to find a spirit afoot there that was akin to that in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. The only bit of Yorkshire left now is north Yorkshire. In one of the Government's good centralising activities, Yorkshire was finished.

Mr. Richard Holt: With respect, that is not accurate because the Government did away with north Yorkshire and made an abortion called Cleveland.

Mr. Rees: That is another matter and, in the hon. Gentleman's view, it probably proves that local government reform was a mistake.
It is extremely sad that only north Yorkshire is left. Last night I went to Huddersfield to hear the Huddersfield choral society, and all Yorkshire was present. When the choir sang the Hallelujah chorus, I thought, "I wonder what smart remarks that lot down in London would make about this." It was Yorkshire, but because of the Tory Government there is nothing but north Yorkshire left. That illustrates the mistake being made in this reform.
How will the residuary body work regarding the reorganisation of the police? Last night at the concert I asked many people what would happen about the west Yorkshire police, whether its headquarters would remain in Wakefield, and how the five district councils would deal with policing. Nobody seemed to know. I am convinced


that the reorganisation of the police in west Yorkshire cannot be left to appointees of either the Secretary of State for the Environment or the Home Secretary.
The question does not merely relate to policing and the number of policemen under each district council, but to the financing of the force. Under the existing west Yorkshire police, policing is provided for all parts of west Yorkshire, but not according to rateable value. Anyone who expects Leeds to pay more towards the precept that will go to the policing authority to provide more policing in Kirklees under the new arrangement, will find a different attitude and separate financing.
Who will advise on the policing aspect? Will it be Her Majesty's inspector for that part or the inspectorate in London? It cannot merely be the chief constable. In west Yorkshire we are extremely fortunate with our chief constable. The force did extraordinarily well during the miners' strike, calling in outside policemen perhaps only once. The policing was carried out with great sympathy and understanding, and I am extremely proud of the West Yorkshire police. I used to be responsible for practical policing, and I am extremely concerned about the West Yorkshire police because, apart from reading little bits in the newspapers, I do not know what is going on.
It is important not to put too much power in the hands of the Home Office. We should not allow abolition to become a ratchet step towards a national police force. What matters are local police forces and local committees. The only reason I have spoken tonight is that we have heard so little about the effect of the changes. It would be much better to allow elected representatives from the district councils to take part in police planning, because they will know far more about local needs than will any appointed person. We should remember the mistakes that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate agrees were made in the past. It is one thing to get the drainage system wrong; it will be bad for west Yorkshire if police operations are arranged badly as a result of this aspect of local government reform. I agree with my hon. Friend for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) that elected local representatives should sit on the residuary bodies.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Giles Shaw): With the leave of the House, I shall comment on the interesting points made by the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees). I assure him that the residuary bodies will have no relationship with the police. The police will be governed by the joint boards that are established by the Bill. It might help the right hon. Gentleman to know that, in relation to west Yorkshire, to which he and I are completely devoted, the arrangements of the joint board will allow representation from each of the district councils in the area. There will be five representatives from Bradford, two from Calderdale, two from Kirklees, eight from Leeds and three from Wakefield, in addition to which there will be 11 magistrates.
I should also inform the right hon. Gentleman that the arrangements for the provision of the police will not alter geographically, and that the arrangements for the tripartite system will remain intact — the 50 per cent. funding from the local authorities, which will be precepted by the joint board on to the individual districts, and the 50 per cent. central Government funding.
Although the police authority will be a different body, it will still be formed largely of district council representatives and magistrates under the general Home Office arrangement that pertains now. The arrangement in west Yorkshire will run as well as it does today.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: For three years, the finances of the body, which, as the Minister of State rightly said, is not the residuary body, will be controlled by the Home Office.

Mr. Shaw: The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that, for three years, the Home Secretary has a residuary power to oversee the financial arrangements, should he be so minded, but it is hoped that the arrangements in relation to the efficiency and operation of the force will not require that intervention.

Mr. David Ashby: Although I represent a Leicestershire constituency, before I came to the House I was a member of the Greater London council for four years, during which time I chaired the housing committee and assisted in the dispersal of the housing stock to the boroughs. Therefore, I believe that I know something about the subject and have had much experience of the body which we are seeking tonight finally to abolish.
I wish that more members of the public knew how much support Labour Back-Bench Members are giving to their Front-Bench spokesmen tonight.
We have heard screams about lack of democracy. I expected more London Members to be on the Opposition Benches which are almost empty except for that occupied by the chairman of the GLC — I presume that he is called "chair" not "chairman".

Mr. Snape: How long has the hon. Gentleman been there?

Mr. Ashby: Longer than the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape). In my days the chair of the GLC was made of bog oak. I wonder what present members feel when they address that bog oak chair and call it "chair."
When I heard the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) I thought, "These councils come and these councils go — but fortunately the services continue." I pay tribute to the high quality of GLC staff. At the officer level it was as good as we could yet anywhere in the country. It was of very high standard. I am confident that those with whom I worked will continue to serve the GLC to the end in the spirit and tradition of the service.
Mistakes have been made. Mistakes were made in 1964 and 1974. They were intended to put right local government and they are accepted as being mistakes. When the Greater London council was created in 1964 it had many responsibilities such as for ambulance services. Within a few years it had shed that service and by 1978–79 it was beginning to shed other services.

Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman should not use the word "shed" in relation to services by county hall. To my certain knowledge the GLC, of which I have been a member for many years, has never willingly given up its services. In most cases the services have been taken from county hall by Governments of both colours.

Mr. Ashby: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The services were given up willingly. I willingly negotiated with others the giving up to the boroughs of the GLC's


housing stock. That was willingly done. One of the greatest housing empires—260,000 houses—was handed over to the boroughs. That move was resisted, but sense prevailed and only the other day Tower Hamlets finally took the last of the housing stock into its department. In the end this was done willingly because there was a housing department for the boroughs and a housing authority for the GLC. There is no reason for such duplication.
We are talking about the 1964 Act. In that year a fundamental mistake was made. We created large boroughs and the Greater London council because it was thought that one body should represent London. That was a mistake. Having created this great council, similar to county councils, we were left with the GLC which is an anomaly.
The GLC was given wholly unnecessary duplicated powers, and after 20 years we have now reached the sorry stage of needing to abolish it.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said that he would like regional councils instead, but what would they do beyond what the boroughs already do? The same duplication would be bound to occur.

11 pm

Mr. Simon Hughes: Regional government, as most other countries of western Europe know and enjoy it, would have no duplicated powers with the boroughs. Powers would be devolved to it which are now exercised from Whitehall but which are better exercised at a regional level, leaving to the boroughs the services which are best run at a level closer to the people who use them.

Mr. Ashby: With the greatest respect, the hon. Gentleman knows that that is nonsense. In other European countries the boroughs do not have the powers that ours have. Our boroughs have education responsibilities but in almost every other European country those responsibilities are carried by the state. I cannot see what additional powers a regional authority would have apart from one or two wider planning functions which could be dealt with just as effectively by regional conferences as and when required rather than by setting up a regional authority with a vast bureaucracy to support it.

Mr. Tony Banks: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument carefully because I know him to have been a reasonable person as a GLC member, although something seems to have happened to him since then.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of services being willingly given up the GLC. He knows that the GLC never willingly gave up its responsibilities for water and sewerage services, ambulance services or transport. As for duplication, why was transport taken from the GLC? Where was the duplication there?

Mr. Ashby: Responsibility for transport was given to the GLC late in its life, in the mid-1970s—

Mr. Snape: It was in 1968.

Mr. Ashby: I thought that it was a little later. At any rate, London Transport was run with great difficulty by the GLC and the end of the GLC's responsibility for transport came when we saw people being appointed to the board on a purely political basis, people with no ability to run anything, and the whole thing became a farce. The Government then rightly took back what had been given because London Transport was not being run properly for

the benefit of the people of London. Like most Conservative Members, I use public transport in London. As chairman of the GLC the hon. Gentleman uses his limousine most of the time, but some of us have to use public transport and it is being run as well now as it ever was under the Conservative administration at county hall. I cannot see that anything has altered.

Mr. Snape: The fares have gone up.

Mr. Ashby: How many of the items covered by the residuary bodies have ever appeared on a GLC agenda or even on a GLC committee agenda in their own right? None have appeared more than once in every four or five years. Why do we have to have a special body to deal with an administrative matter? Why do we have to turn discussion of these residuary matters into a great big talking shop? The Labour party has endeavoured feverishly to put across the Government's actions as anti-democratic.

Mr. Nellist: rose—

Mr. Ashby: The alternative to the GLC would be abolition of the boroughs. That would be the only way in which to have unwasteful government. One can imagine the hue and cry from Opposition Members if we tried to do that and equate London with electricity councils.
If Londoners could remember some of the Labour actions, they would appreciate the need to abolish the GLC. I remember a marvellous occasion—Her Majesty the Queen's silver jubilee. It was a time of great rejoicing in the capital and many people were out in the streets enjoying themselves. In the same year, the Conservatives gained control of County hall. Before that, however, the Labour GLC was asked if it would like to present a loyal address to Her Majesty. It told Buckingham palace that, if she wanted a loyal address, she should drive up to County Hall and get it for herself. That was a disgraceful action and when we came to power, we apologised to Buckingham palace and went to present a humble address. We have witnessed such political action time and again. The Labour party wants people who acted in that way to run residuary services, not to ensure that they are wound up but to see that they are built up.

Mr. Nellist: The hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) spoke of political actions. The possibility of people being disrespectful to the monarchy seemed rationale enough to him to stop them, being put on residuary bodies. When the Government introduced these measures 18 months ago, we were assured that it had nowt to do with the political colour of people on elected authorities who might be members of successor bodies. It was all to do with economics. It was all about unnecessary tiers of government. Now we hear the malicious voice of this Tory Government. It is about the fear of changing political attitudes in this country and what can happen to bodies in the future.
The hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West categorised the bodies under discussion in this set of amendments as inconsequential. He spoke about matters as not coming up once in five years in normal council or county council agendas. Once the Bill is passed, the matters under discussion will be compensation, hard debts inherited from the metropolitan county and the former GLC and staffing transfers. They will talk about things like property. The hon. Member may not be aware, but when the West Midlands county council was set up some 11


years ago, it took 10 years to sort out the amalgamation of the property rights of the seven district councils which were the constituent bodies of the now West Midlands county council. We are not talking about a seven-way amalgamation but about a 195 way split, and these bodies are going to have full agendas in the future trying to sort out who owns the different houses and the different bits of property presently under the ownership of the metropolitan counties and the GLC.

Mr. Tony Banks: Is the hon. Member aware that at County Hall there is still litigation pending on claims outstanding from the LCC-GLC reorganisation in 1965?

Mr. Nellist: The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) about the 20-years litigation which is still to be resolved, shows the seriousness of the discussion we are having and it ought to be treated seriously by Tory Members. I want to deal with the staffing implications of this clause and its implications in general.
I declare an interest, though it should not be necessary to do so, given the length of time this Bill was in Committee, in that I am a member of the West Midlands county council. I come from a region with well over one-third of a million people unemployed, where one in three families are on supplementary benefit. I come from a city where the unemployment level is 25 per cent. I have one ward in my constituency where the unemployment rate is over 50 per cent.
Here we are in the last 49 minutes of a discussion, and in my area 6,800 people presently working for the West Midlands county council, and tens of thousands who work for the GLC and the county councils in the other five metropolitan areas, still do not know what will happen to their jobs. The 6,800 people working for the West Midlands county council have, in the last two years, seen their lives being shattered by this Bill. Eighteen months ago they listened to the Secretary of State, who has not graced us much with his presence in this debate, though his Minister is still on the Bench, talking about saving £120 million. Now it is down to £100 million. He talked about cutting 9,000 jobs, but the latest figure is 7,100 and still we have not heard from any spokesman, official or unofficial of this Tory Government, on how they arrived at those figures. What is the breakdown county by county or service by service? We had to drag it out of certain Ministers in Committee. The fire service and the police service were not supposed to be having any staffing cuts, but still we have not heard whether that is true for clerical workers as well as for operational staff.
We have heard that cuts are not anticipated in waste disposal and archives, but our consumer services and coroners may cost more. Towards the end of the Committee stage it became clear that highways, planning and administration were the only services the Tories would target. We ought to be aware, as are working people outside this Chamber, that in some of the metropolitan county areas those three Services, if the Government are to meet the 7,100 target nationally for job cuts in this Bill will be making a 35 or 40 per cent. cut in staffing. Is that the real figure? The Minister of State has the opportunity to come to the Dispatch Box now and put at rest the minds of those workers up and down the country who are affected by this clause and the other clauses on staffing. I will give

him a chance. What services and which areas of the county are going to be affected by this Bill? The Minister does not know.

Mr. Holt: rose—

Mr. Nellist: I am not giving way after what I have been through today. The Minister is not taking the opportunity that I am offering him. Some Conservative Members have said that the figures cannot be given because trade unionists employed in the councils and the elected leadership of those councils have not co-operated with the Tory Government and given the necessary information. How, therefore, did the original targets come about? How did the Government arrive at the figures of £100 million and 7,100 if they did not have the information?

Mr. Tony Banks: They made them up.

Mr. Nellist: As my hon. Friend reminds me, those figures were made up. Between the Royal Assent and March or April next year people will be asked to do three jobs as a result of the amendment that we are discussing. They will be asked to continue to provide the services that they were contracted to provide. They may be asked to work for a quango, a residuary body or a district council, and they will be asked to provide information to other quangos and Ministers. Those people are working under stress. About 400 workers have left the West Midlands county council during the past 10 months. We are seeing the beginning of the disintegration of some specialist teams. I shall not go into this in detail now and I did not have time to do so a couple of hours ago, but the specialist teams under threat are those engaged in toxic and hazardous waste disposal, the chemists, the biologists, and the hydrogeologists. They are the people who have the skills to deal with matters on a countywide basis. It is the rearrangement of services that the amendment deals with that worries me.

Mr. Holt: rose—

Mr. Nellist: I shall not give way, because I have nearly finished. The hon. Gentleman can follow me. This provision is not designed solely to meet the political targets that were dreamed up by Tory Ministers two or three years ago, it is a preparation for privatisation. It is no accident that during the past 18 months that we have debated this matter, we have seen, although not necessarily heard from, those Tory Members whose directorships and consultancies are with the firms that would like to take the pickings from the dismemberment of the metropolitan county councils and the GLC, in the form of such services as those dealing with private waste disposal and highway construction and some aspects of transport. Those Tory Members also disagree with the political policies of the elected leadership of the metropolitan county councils.
We have been told that no breakdown is available of the figures to show how the jobs will go if the Bill completes its passage through the House tonight. Abolition will cost millions of pounds more. Some people say that in the metropolitan county council area it will cost up to £69 million a year more to provide the level of services that is being provided now. All those services will deteriorate and people will lose their jobs.
The Labour party warns the House that that will all be changed when the Goverment are changed within the next


year or two. The Bill is not about abolishing the functions of the metropolitan county councils and the GLC but about abolishing councillors and their elected leadership. It is about abolishing the rights of 18 million people to elect the leadership of the metropolitan county councils and the GLC. The lessons learnt over the past 18 months during the passage of the Bill have been absorbed by working people, by those who work for the county councils and the trade unions who represent them. Those lessons will rebound on this Tory Government when we have a change of Government in the next year or so.

Mr. Wareing: When discussing the composition of the residuary bodies the Government are under an obligation to answer the many unanswered questions that have been asked in the House and the other place. We have not discussed economic development at great length when we have talked about the allocation of services among the districts, the joint boards and the residuary bodies.
Labour-controlled county councils have endeavoured to deal with the major social problem of mass unemployment. Since 1979, 700,000 redundancies have been created in the metropolitan area and the number of jobless has doubled to over 869,000. Seventeen per cent. of the work force in the metropolitan areas is unemployed. Many of these areas have an aging infrastructure and aging industries. Youth unemployment amounts to over 344,000 and the figure for the long-term jobless is well over 25,000. In those areas the economic development committees of local authorities have either saved or created 45,000 jobs and at an average of £600 per job this is far more cost effective than any of the regional programmes undertaken by either the Conservative Government or the previous Labour Government.
In areas such as Merseyside people have a right to know whether the residuary body will take over some responsibility for economic development companies, subsidiary companies like enterprise boards, and the Merseyside innovation centre, for example, which attempts to apply new technology to industry. We have the right to know whether or not the residuary body will have some scope in that particular area, because people's jobs depend on it. Small businesses depend upon the assistance of various economic development committees in the metropolitan areas.
I am the last person to promote the idea of a residuary body, but if there is to be a residuary body we should be talking about democratic county authorities. Even though I am not normally in accord with some of the economic ideas of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermonsey (Mr. Hughes), we should be discussing the take-over by democratic authorities of regional facilities, such as water, area health authorities and gas and electricity distributive services. We should be talking about the spread of democracy, but in this last period of debate we have only the left-overs.
If a joint committee for Merseyside were established, and assuming that the district councils had a say in the appointment of its members, it would ask the Government why they are fragmenting the arts and culture services of Merseyside. As hon. Members know, like the GLC area, Merseyside has been allocated a trust which will take over certain museums and art galleries. Earlier this year Lord Gowrie reported in another place that the Croxteth country park and Croxteth hall, which are in the centre of my constituency, and Speke hall, which is in the constituency

of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), would be transferred not to the trust but to the Liverpool city council. It has been said these are not museums of national significance, but what would be the cost to Liverpool?
The crisis which is facing the city of Liverpool has been brought about by the Government's financial constraints. There may be legal difficulties in transferring Speke hall to the Liverpool city council, as it is presently owned by the National Trust, although maintained by Merseyside county council, but Croxteth country park has undoubtedly been developed by Merseyside county council since 1974 in a way that would have been impossible for the Liverpool city council. The Earls of Sefton left the Croxteth estate to the Liverpool city council in the 1960s, and because of the expense involved they found great difficulty in renovating the hall and the area.
The county council has established a visitors' centre, and opened to the public the principal rooms in the hall, opened a rare breeds farm and a riding centre and developed the gardens surrounding this delightful spot, right in the centre of both Merseyside and my constituency. It has been listed by the English tourist board as among the top 20 fast-growing attractions in the country. The country park has recently received the Sandford award for heritage education for its highly successful educational programme. Many schemes have been presented, and much advice has been given by the Countryside Commission.
Some £1 million has been spent on a restoration programme at Speke hall, and the number of visitors to both these halls was above average in a time of recession. I appeal to the Government that, regardless of the difference between us in our reaction to local government reorganisation, they should be looking yet again at Croxteth country park and Speke hall. I hope that the Government will look on the amendment with some sympathy, and that the advice that Liverpool city council is unable to maintain and restore both Croxteth and Speke hall will be accepted.
The danger on Merseyside is that a real asset and part of Merseyside's heritage will simply disappear from the enjoyment not only of Merseysiders, but of people from all over the world, as was shown during the international garden festival. I ask the Minister to think again before he allows to go to seed the good work that has been done over the past 10 years by the Merseyside county council with these assets that are so vital to the people of the region.

Mr. Tony Banks: I am glad that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) has returned, because I shall direct a few remarks to him. He could not have been more wrong when he suggested that I did not have the same sort of respect for the office of chairman of the GLC as either past holders of that office or past leaders of the GLC. He mentioned Sir Isaac Hayward. He will have known that person for more years than I did, but I had the pleasure of meeting him and talking to him on a number of occasions. I like to think that many of the finer points of local government that are enshrined within the GLC are attributable to the standards that Ike Hayward laid down. Although the policies are different, the same standards are being pursued by the present leadership of the GLC. If the hon. Gentleman gets a hint of resentment in my comments, he will, in this case, be correct.
There is little chance that the London residuary body or the successor bodies will be able to complete abolition and take-over by 1 April 1986. The reasons are clear. Nobody knew what the shape of the Bill would be. During its passage throught Parliament it has been dramatically and fundamentally altered. Staggering changes have been made since "Streamlining the Cities" was published. How could anybody work out what would have happened? We cannot be completely sure, even at this stage. Many hon. Members believe that this is the end of the matter, but the amendments that we have made will go the House of Lords where I feel there will be a backlash. The Bill will then be returned to this House, so we are reaching only the end of another stage in its passage. The Bill contains provisions relating to the implementation of all sorts of orders, so the ramifications of the abolition of the Greater London council and the metropolitan county councils will continue to occupy the attention of the House until 31 March 1986.
11.30 pm
We heard earlier about the position of staff in the GLC and the metropolitan county councils. The staff of the GLC are in an extremely peculiar position. Between August and 1 April 1986 the staff of the GLC will be trying to perform three jobs. First, they will continue to carry out the services and functions of the GLC. Secondly, they will be working directly for a single borough council or a quango. Thirdly, they will have to answer requests for information from the 31 other boroughs, quangos or Ministers who will still be showering county hall with requests. Large numbers of staff will be transferred to the successor bodies, or they will be sacked. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) tried to get the Minister to say how many members of staff will be made redundant, but he was given no answer. The staff commission has been remarkably quiet. Perhaps we could be told what is happening. It has not been involved in implementing the transfer of staff and shows little sign of having made any plans. Local government will be thrown into complete confusion. The position is bad enough now, but it will get even worse between August and 31 March.
It is not surprising, given the uncertainties, that the GLC is losing a number of its key staff. Not unnaturally, they are thinking about their future careers, their family commitments and their mortgages. That is a normal human response to the problem that the Government have inflicted upon them, and it makes it even more difficult for the GLC and the metropolitan county councils to maintain the services that they are statutorily obliged to maintain until 31 March 1986.
Moreover, the future financial structure of London's government is still uncertain and will remain uncertain until, at the very earliest, December 1985. The boroughs will be unable to decide upon the level of funding of their services until they know their expenditure targets and grant related expenditure assessments, the level of rate capping, where that is appropriate, and the details of the London equalisation scheme. London boroughs will have just three months in which to plan their policies, appoint their staffs and get organised. It is a hopelessly unrealistic timetable. It would assist the boroughs and the residuary bodies if the Department of the Environment could give advice, but the civil servants are clearly driving by the seats of their

trousers because they do not know what the future holds and are making it up as they go along, just as the Government have made it up during the passage of this shameful Bill. The quangos, preparatory committees and joint authorities will not even meet until September, so they will have a maximum of seven months to try to implement the change-over.
I suppose that new office accommodation will be found for the London residuary body. In answering one of the few questions that I tabled, the Minister said that County hall might be used as accommodation for the London residuary body. That answer conflicts with another statement that County hall will be sold. Perhaps it will be sold to fund one of the charitable off-shore institutions that Ministers are hoping to set up.
We need answers to these questions. Although we have asked them many times, we have not yet been given satisfactory answers. The files, computer programs, information sytems and legal records that are with the GLC will have to be routed to scores of different destinations and made compatible with the information of the receiving bodies.
Proper joint working arrangements will have to be established, involving the creation of a consensus among the 32 London boroughs of differing political complexions on the polices to be pursued and the level of services to be given. The electorate has given no mandate or guidance on these matters. The Secretary of State will have to give guidance and make decisions on hundreds of local government issues when his civil servants have no direct experience or qualifications to enable them to do so. We have seen how true that is by noting the way in which the bill has been changed during its passage. It bears little relationship to the original legislation. The House is being asked to agree a dog's breakfast of a Bill.
Sorting out all the legal tangles that are involved in local government will cause many problems. We cannot dispose of major institutions and expect no legal problems. The successor body arrangements are not straightforward. We should remember what happened when the GLC was established. We cannot expect major disputes in the courts to drag on for ages.
We have heard a great deal about the co-operation between boroughs that will be forthcoming. My deputy chairman at county hall, the estimable Sandy Sandford, is a good Tory who is wholly opposed—

Mr. Corbyn: There is no such thing.

Mr. Banks: There is. I know at least two good Tories. I admit that one of them is now dead, Sandy Sandford says that there will not be voluntary co-operation, even between Tory boroughs. He speaks as a former chairman of planning at Westminster. He says that the worst problem that he ever had was not with Labour boroughs but in trying to achieve voluntary co-operation with the true blue Tory borough of Kensington and Chelsea. The Minister deceives himself and the House if he thinks that there will be much voluntary co-operation among the boroughs in London or among the districts in the metropolitan counties. It is interesting to note that litigation is still outstanding on the LCC-GLC re-organisation in 1965.
I cite one final statistic in a debate that has roamed wider than I expected. I am grateful for that. The GLC owns 12,234 properties and pieces of land. The legal documents relating to that ownership occupy four miles of


shelving. We do not have the time between now and 31 March even to dust all the files in four miles of shelving, never mind come back with an easy transition to the 175 successor bodies that the Minister claims will streamline the structure of local government in London and the metropolitan counties.
The Bill is now more of a mess than when it started its passage through Parliament. The fault for that lies entirely with the Government Front Bench and the people who have supported them because little or no thought went into the proposal. Therefore, the confusion that will undoubtedly come from the enactment of the Bill will be entirely of the Government's making, and they will live to rue the day.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: It is perhaps appropriate that the last speech to be made from the Opposition Benches in the long parliamentary proceedings of the Bill should be made by the present and, indeed, the last, chairman of the GLC.

Mr. Banks: Chair.

Mr. Baker: Chair, I am sorry. The hon. Member has been a consistent opponent of the measure. In one little aside a moment ago, he referred to one of the few questions which he has put to my Department on the measure. One of the few questions? He asked well over 1,000 questions on the measure, costing the Government tens of thousands of pounds—he is the last of the big Oscars. He has certainly applied himself with energy to defending the GLC, and I will recognise that fact.
We are now in almost the 340th hour of debate on the measure, including the time spent in the other House. It has been very lengthily debated at all stages — one of the longest Bills for debate that we have had for many years.
The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), in moving the amendments, thanked all those people who had been briefing him over the last year or 18 months. It was a good briefing. We occasionally saw bits of it. It was certainly intense and voluminous. There was a team of 27 from the GLC working on it, I understand. I thought that the work provided by the metropolitan counties was of a better quality, and, for my money, better work. None the less, it was impressive, and, as he rightly said, it is rather unusual with any Bill going through the House for the Opposition to be as well briefed as Ministers.
There was great talk about the destruction of things —the destruction of services and of activities. The one thing that gave me some little pleasure as the Bill was going through and as I looked upon the serried ranks of the PR people in the galleries was that we were destroying the client base of many PR firms by abolishing the metropolitan counties, for they have benefited enormously from this exercise. Indeed, one of the features of this operation is the vast amount of money which has been spent on advertising, some £10 million, and in the course of the last few days, another £95,000 on four-page advertisements in the press.

Mr. Snape: In the midst of these strictures, will the Minister bear in mind that he might be doing a great deal of financial damage to many of his right hon. and hon. Friends?

Mr. Baker: My strictures are the same, whether I afflict my friends or my enemies, when I come to the enormous amounts of money which I think has been wasted in the PR campaign of the metropolitan counties.
If I may remind the House of the purpose of the amendments the Lords amendment allowed the co-ordinating committees to appoint one member, who would obviously be a councillor, to serve on the residuary body. The hon. Member for Blackburn, in moving the amendment some two hours ago, sought to say that all 10 members of the residuary body should be elected councillors. I would resist that. He is aware, but other hon. Members may not be, of the role of the residuary bodies. It is to operate exactly as the residuary legatee of the six metropolitan counties and of the GLC. It is there to wind up the functions such as management of the debt, management of the mortgage book and management of superannuation schemes and pension schemes, continuing functions which, in some cases, as regards the metropolitan counties, could well be taken over by lead boroughs. There is talk of co-operation or lack of it, but outside London I am well aware of various fairly secret discussions which have been taking place among Labour districts where they will volunteer—

Mr. Snape: Name them.

Mr. Baker: They do not like to be named for the simple reason that it is still the official policy of the Labour party not to co-operate. It is the official policy of the national executive not to co-operate. It is the official policy of the TUC not to co-operate. We know that many plans are being laid and that some of the functions which may go to the residuary body in London will be done by lead boroughs in the other metropolitan areas.
I support what the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said about the need for co-operation. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said towards the end of his speech, the Government and the Staff Commission will not be to blame if there is no co-operation. Hostility has been engendered by certain unions but not by all. Some branches of some unions have been hostile, but not all, and have refused to co-operate with the commission or ourselves. The commission has opened discussions with many unions. It has already issued six circulars defining ring fencing. I have heard today that certain Labour-controlled London borough councils will refuse to comply with ring fencing unless directed by the Secretary of State. I understand that one of the west midlands district councils has decided not to co-operate, under pressure from the unions.
It is not in the interests of council staffs or union members to take that attitude. When the Bill receives the Royal Assent — I hope that that will take place next week — I hope that attitudes will change and that there will be co-operation on the part of boroughs, district councils and unions. Some branches of unions have seen me. The west midlands NALGO branch has talked and there has been a series of fruitful meetings and discussions with it. I have talked also to some of the staff associations. That is the way forward.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to Mr. Jarvis, the chairman of the trades union local government committee. He wrote:
We remain willing to open negotiations with your member local government unions. There are matters on which we are prepared to be flexible in the expectation that your member unions will come to the negotiating table in a constructive and realistic way.
I hope that, now the Bill is almost on the statute book, there will be a change of heart among the unions which are


still sticking out to oppose it. Members on both sides of the House are concerned about the interests and well-being of the staff. We have already made arrangements through some of the amendments in another place to arrange early retirement schemes for the successor authorities so that they can take on more of the staff of the authorities that are to be abolished.
In the way forward, as we move towards the date—

Mr. Nellist: rose—

Mr. Baker: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue. As we move towards the date of abolition, which will be 31 March 1986—

Mr. Nellist: rose—

Mr. Baker: —I hope that the transition will be smooth, as that will be in the interests of the residents of all the conurbations that will be affected, and of London. It will be in the interests of the ratepayers of those areas and in the interests of the staff of the authorities that will be abolished. I hope that that co-operation will come about.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided:Ayes 188, Noes 316.

Division No. 261]
11.48 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Craigen, J. M.


Anderson, Donald
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dalyell, Tam


Ashdown, Paddy
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Ashton, Joe
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Deakins, Eric


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dewar, Donald


Barnett, Guy
Dixon, Donald


Barron, Kevin
Dobson, Frank


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Dormand, Jack


Beith, A. J.
Dubs, Alfred


Bell, Stuart
Duffy, A. E. P.


Benn, Tony
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Eadie, Alex


Bermingham, Gerald
Eastham, Ken


Bidwell, Sydney
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Blair, Anthony
Ewing, Harry


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Fatchett, Derek


Boyes, Roland
Faulds, Andrew


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Fisher, Mark


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Flannery, Martin


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bruce, Malcolm
Forrester, John


Buchan, Norman
Foster, Derek


Caborn, Richard
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Campbell, Ian
Freud, Clement


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Garrett, W. E.


Carter-Jones, Lewis
George, Bruce


Cartwright, John
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Godman, Dr Norman


Clarke, Thomas
Golding, John


Clay, Robert
Gould, Bryan


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Hancock, Mr. Michael


Cohen, Harry
Hardy, Peter


Coleman, Donald
Harman, Ms Harriet


Conlan, Bernard
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Heffer, Eric S.


Corbett, Robin
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Home Robertson, John


Cowans, Harry
Howells, Geraint


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Hoyle, Douglas





Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Pavitt, Laurie


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Pendry, Tom


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Pike, Peter


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Janner, Hon Greville
Prescott, John


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)
Radice, Giles


John, Brynmor
Randall, Stuart


Johnston, Sir Russell
Redmond, M.


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Richardson, Ms Jo


Kennedy, Charles
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Robertson, George


Kirkwood, Archy
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Lambie, David
Rogers, Allan


Leighton, Ronald
Rooker, J. W.


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Rowlands, Ted


Litherland, Robert
Sedgemore, Brian


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Sheerman, Barry


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Loyden, Edward
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McCartney, Hugh
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


McKelvey, William
Skinner, Dennis


Maclennan, Robert
Smith, C.(lsl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


McNamara, Kevin
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


McTaggart, Robert
Snape, Peter


McWilliam, John
Soley, Clive


Madden, Max
Steel, Rt Hon David


Marek, Dr John
Stott, Roger


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Strang, Gavin


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Straw, Jack


Maxton, John
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Meadowcroft, Michael
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Michie, William
Tinn, James


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Wallace, James


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Wareing, Robert


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
White, James


Nellist, David
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Winnick, David


O'Brien, William
Woodall, Alec


O'Neill, Martin
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley



Park, George
Tellers for the Ayes:


Parry, Robert
Mr. Allen McKay and


Patchett, Terry
Mr. Frank Haynes.


NOES


Adley, Robert
Bright, Graham


Alexander, Richard
Brinton, Tim


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Amess, David
Brooke, Hon Peter


Ancram, Michael
Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)


Ashby, David
Browne, John


Aspinwall, Jack
Bruinvels, Peter


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Bryan, Sir Paul


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Buck, Sir Antony


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Budgen, Nick


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Burt, Alistair


Baldry, Tony
Butcher, John


Batiste, Spencer
Butler, Hon Adam


Bellingham, Henry
Butterfill, John


Bendall, Vivian
Carlisle, John (N Luton)


Benyon, William
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)


Best, Keith
Carttiss, Michael


Bevan, David Gilroy
Cash, William


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Chapman, Sydney


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Chope, Christopher


Body, Richard
Churchill, W. S.


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)


Bottomley, Peter
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Clegg, Sir Walter


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Colvin, Michael


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Coombs, Simon






Cope, John
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Corrie, John
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Couchman, James
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Cranborne, Viscount
Hunter, Andrew


Crouch, David
Irving, Charles


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dicks, Terry
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Dorrell, Stephen
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Dover, Den
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Key, Robert


Dunn, Robert
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Durant, Tony
King, Rt Hon Tom


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Eggar, Tim
Knowles, Michael


Emery, Sir Peter
Lamont, Norman


Evennett, David
Lang, Ian


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Latham, Michael


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lawler, Geoffrey


Fallon, Michael
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Farr, Sir John
Lee, John (Pendle)


Favell, Anthony
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Fletcher, Alexander
Lightbown, David


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lilley, Peter


Forman, Nigel
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Forth, Eric
Lord, Michael


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lyell, Nicholas


Fox, Marcus
McCrindle, Robert


Franks, Cecil
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Macfarlane, Neil


Freeman, Roger
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Fry, Peter
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Gale, Roger
Maclean, David John


Galley, Roy
McQuarrie, Albert


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Madel, David


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Major, John


Glyn, Dr Alan
Malins, Humfrey


Goodlad, Alastair
Malone, Gerald


Gow, Ian
Maples, John


Gower, Sir Raymond
Marland, Paul


Grant, Sir Anthony
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Greenway, Harry
Mates, Michael


Gregory, Conal
Mather, Carol


Griffiths, Sir Eldon
Maude, Hon Francis


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Grist, Ian
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Grylls, Michael
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mellor, David


Hampson, Dr Keith
Merchant, Piers


Hanley, Jeremy
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Hannam, John
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Harris, David
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Haselhurst, Alan
Moate, Roger


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Moore, John


Hawksley, Warren
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Hayes, J.
Moynihan, Hon C.


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney
Mudd, David


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Murphy, Christopher


Heddle, John
Neale, Gerrard


Henderson, Barry
Needham, Richard


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Nelson, Anthony


Hickmet, Richard
Neubert, Michael


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Newton, Tony


Hind, Kenneth
Nicholls, Patrick


Hirst, Michael
Norris, Steven


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Onslow, Cranley


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Holt, Richard
Osborn, Sir John


Hordern, Sir Peter
Ottaway, Richard


Howard, Michael
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Parris, Matthew


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abdgn)





Pattie, Geoffrey
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Pollock, Alexander
Stokes, John


Portillo, Michael
Stradling Thomas, J.


Powell, William (Corby)
Sumberg, David


Powley, John
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Price, Sir David
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Proctor, K. Harvey
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Raffan, Keith
Temple-Morris, Peter


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Terlezki, Stefan


Rathbone, Tim
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Renton, Tim
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Rhodes James, Robert
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Thornton, Malcolm


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Thurnham, Peter


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rifkind, Malcolm
Tracey, Richard


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Trippier, David


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Trotter, Neville


Roe, Mrs Marion
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rossi, Sir Hugh
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Rost, Peter
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rowe, Andrew
Viggers, Peter


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Waddington, David


Ryder, Richard
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Walden, George


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Scott, Nicholas
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Wall, Sir Patrick


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Waller, Gary


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Ward, John


Shersby, Michael
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Silvester, Fred
Watson, John


Sims, Roger
Watts, John


Skeet, T. H. H.
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wheeler, John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Whitfield, John


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Whitney, Raymond


Speller, Tony
Wiggin, Jerry


Spencer, Derek
Wolfson, Mark


Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Wood, Timothy


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Woodcock, Michael


Squire, Robin
Yeo, Tim


Stanbrook, Ivor
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stanley, John



Steen, Anthony
Tellers for the Noes:


Stern, Michael
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Mr. Archie Hamilton.

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Twelve o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the order of the House this day, to put the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Schedule 6

WASTE REGULATION AND DISPOSAL

Lords amendment: No. 73, leave out schedule 6.

Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment. — [Mr. Patrick Jenkin.]

The House divided: Ayes 320, Noes 187.

Division No. 262]
[12.01 am


AYES


Adley, Robert
Aspinwall, Jack


Aitken, Jonathan
Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.


Alexander, Richard
Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)


Amess, David
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)


Ancram, Michael
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)


Ashby, David
Baldry, Tony






Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Franks, Cecil


Batiste, Spencer
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Bellingham, Henry
Freeman, Roger


Bendall, Vivian
Fry, Peter


Best, Keith
Gale, Roger


Bevan, David Gilroy
Galley, Roy


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Body, Richard
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Goodlad, Alastair


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gow, Ian


Bottomley, Peter
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Grant, Sir Anthony


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Greenway, Harry


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gregory, Conal


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Griffiths, Sir Eldon


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Bright, Graham
Grist, Ian


Brinton, Tim
Grylls, Michael


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Browne, John
Hanley, Jeremy


Bruinvels, Peter
Hannam, John


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Buck, Sir Antony
Harris, David


Budgen, Nick
Haselhurst, Alan


Burt, Alistair
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Butcher, John
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Butler, Hon Adam
Hawksley, Warren


Butterfill, John
Hayes, J.


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Heddle, John


Cash, William
Henderson, Barry


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hickmet, Richard


Chapman, Sydney
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Chope, Christopher
Hind, Kenneth


Churchill, W. S.
Hirst, Michael


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Holt, Richard


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Clegg, Sir Walter
Howard, Michael


Cockeram, Eric
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Colvin, Michael
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Coombs, Simon
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Cope, John
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Corrie, John
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Couchman, James
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Cranborne, Viscount
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Crouch, David
Hunter, Andrew


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Irving, Charles


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Dicks, Terry
Jessel, Toby


Dorrell, Stephen
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Dover, Den
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Dunn, Robert
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Durant, Tony
Key, Robert


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Eggar, Tim
King, Rt Hon Tom


Emery, Sir Peter
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Evennett, David
Knowles, Michael


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Lamont, Norman


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Latham, Michael


Fallon, Michael
Lawler, Geoffrey


Farr, Sir John
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Favell, Anthony
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Fletcher, Alexander
Lightbown, David


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lilley, Peter


Forman, Nigel
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Forth, Eric
Lord, Michael


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lyell, Nicholas


Fox, Marcus
McCrindle, Robert





McCurley, Mrs Anna
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Macfarlane, Neil
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Scott, Nicholas


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Maclean, David John
Shelton, William (Streatham)


McQuarrie, Albert
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Madel, David
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Malins, Humfrey
Shersby, Michael


Malone, Gerald
Silvester, Fred


Maples, John
Sims, Roger


Marland, Paul
Skeet, T. H. H.


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Mates, Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Mather, Carol
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Maude, Hon Francis
Speller, Tony


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Spencer, Derek


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mellor, David
Squire, Robin


Merchant, Piers
Stanbrook, Ivor


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Stanley, John


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Steen, Anthony


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Stern, Michael


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Moate, Roger
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Moore, John
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Stokes, John


Moynihan, Hon C.
Stradling Thomas, J.


Mudd, David
Sumberg, David


Murphy, Christopher
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Neale, Gerrard
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Needham, Richard
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Nelson, Anthony
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Neubert, Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Newton, Tony
Terlezki, Stefan


Nicholls, Patrick
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Norris, Steven
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Onslow, Cranley
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Osborn, Sir John
Thornton, Malcolm


Ottaway, Richard
Thurnham, Peter


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Tracey, Richard


Parris, Matthew
Trippier, David


Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abdgn)
Trotter, Neville


Pattie, Geoffrey
Twinn, Dr Ian


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Pollock, Alexander
Viggers, Peter


Portillo, Michael
Waddington, David


Powell, William (Corby)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Powley, John
Walden, George


Price, Sir David
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Prior, Rt Hon James
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Proctor, K. Harvey
Wall, Sir Patrick


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Waller, Gary


Raffan, Keith
Ward, John


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Rathbone, Tim
Watson, John


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Watts, John


Renton, Tim
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Rhodes James, Robert
Wheeler, John


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Whitfield, John


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Whitney, Raymond


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Wiggin, Jerry


Rifkind, Malcolm
Wolfson, Mark


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Wood, Timothy


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Woodcock, Michael


Roe, Mrs Marion
Yeo, Tim


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Rost, Peter



Rowe, Andrew
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Mr. John Major and


Ryder, Richard
Mr. Ian Lang.


NOES


Alton, David
Ashdown, Paddy


Anderson, Donald
Ashton, Joe


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)






Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Harman, Ms Harriet


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Barnett, Guy
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Barron, Kevin
Heffer, Eric S.


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Beith, A. J.
Home Robertson, John


Bell, Stuart
Howells, Geraint


Benn, Tony
Hoyle, Douglas


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Bermingham, Gerald
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Blair, Anthony
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Janner, Hon Greville


Boyes, Roland
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
John, Brynmor


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Johnston, Sir Russell


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Kennedy, Charles


Bruce, Malcolm
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Buchan, Norman
Kirkwood, Archy


Caborn, Richard
Lambie, David


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Leighton, Ronald


Campbell, Ian
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Litherland, Robert


Cartwright, John
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Clarke, Thomas
Loyden, Edward


Clay, Robert
McCartney, Hugh


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
McKelvey, William


Cohen, Harry
Maclennan, Robert


Coleman, Donald
McNamara, Kevin


Conlan, Bernard
McTaggart, Robert


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
McWilliam, John


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Madden, Max


Corbett, Robin
Marek, Dr John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Cowans, Harry
Maxton, John


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Craigen, J. M.
Meacher, Michael


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Meadowcroft, Michael


Dalyell, Tam
Michie, William


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Deakins, Eric
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Dewar, Donald
Nellist, David


Dixon, Donald
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Dobson, Frank
O'Brien, William


Dormand, Jack
O'Neill, Martin


Dubs, Alfred
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Duffy, A. E. P.
Park, George


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Parry, Robert


Eadie, Alex
Patchett, Terry


Eastham, Ken
Pavitt, Laurie


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Pendry, Tom


Ewing, Harry
Pike, Peter


Fatchett, Derek
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Faulds, Andrew
Prescott, John


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Radice, Giles


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Randall, Stuart


Fisher, Mark
Redmond, M.


Flannery, Martin
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Richardson, Ms Jo


Forrester, John
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Foster, Derek
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Robertson, George


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Freud, Clement
Rogers, Allan


Garrett, W. E.
Rooker, J. W.


George, Bruce
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Rowlands, Ted


Godman, Dr Norman
Sedgemore, Brian


Golding, John
Sheerman, Barry


Gould, Bryan
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hancock, Mr. Michael
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Hardy, Peter
Silkin, Rt Hon J.





Skinner, Dennis
Wallace, James


Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)
Wareing, Robert


Snape, Peter
White, James


Soley, Clive
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Steel, Rt Hon David
Winnick, David


Stott, Roger
Woodall, Alec


Strang, Gavin
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Straw, Jack



Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Tellers for the Noes:


Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Thorne, Stan (Preston)
Mr. Allen McKay.


Tinn, James

Lords amendment No. 69 agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Schedule 5

ROAD TRAFFIC

Lords amendment: No. 70 in page 120, line 41, leave out from "(5)" to "or" in line 46 and insert
Any expenses reasonably incurred by the Secretary of State in exercising the functions transferred by an order under this paragraph may be recovered by him from the local authorities from which the functions were transferred in such proportions as may be agreed between the local authorities
Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment. — [Mr. Patrick Jenkin.]

The House divided: Ayes 322, Noes 183.

Division No. 263]
[12.13 am


AYES


Adley, Robert
Butcher, John


Aitken, Jonathan
Butler, Hon Adam


Alexander, Richard
Butterfill, John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Carlisle, John (N Luton)


Amess, David
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Ancram, Michael
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)


Ashby, David
Cash, William


Aspinwall, Jack
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Chapman, Sydney


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Chope, Christopher


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Churchill, W. S.


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Baldry, Tony
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Batiste, Spencer
Clegg, Sir Walter


Bellingham, Henry
Cockeram, Eric


Bendall, Vivian
Colvin, Michael


Best, Keith
Coombs, Simon


Bevan, David Gilroy
Cope, John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Corrie, John


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Couchman, James


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Cranborne, Viscount


Body, Richard
Crouch, David


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bottomley, Peter
Dicks, Terry


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Dorrell, Stephen


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Dover, Den


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Dunn, Robert


Bright, Graham
Durant, Tony


Brinton, Tim
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P broke)


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Eggar, Tim


Brooke, Hon Peter
Emery, Sir Peter


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Evennett, David


Browne, John
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Bruinvels, Peter
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fallon, Michael


Buck, Sir Antony
Farr, Sir John


Budgen, Nick
Favell, Anthony


Burt, Alistair
Fenner, Mrs Peggy






Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fletcher, Alexander
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lightbown, David


Forman, Nigel
Lilley, Peter


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Forth, Eric
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lord, Michael


Fox, Marcus
Lyell, Nicholas


Franks, Cecil
McCrindle, Robert


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Freeman, Roger
Macfarlane, Neil


Fry, Peter
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Gale, Roger
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Galley, Roy
Maclean, David John


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
McQuarrie, Albert


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Madel, David


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Malins, Humfrey


Glyn, Dr Alan
Malone, Gerald


Goodlad, Alastair
Maples, John


Gow, Ian
Marland, Paul


Gower, Sir Raymond
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Grant, Sir Anthony
Mates, Michael


Greenway, Harry
Mather, Carol


Gregory, Conal
Maude, Hon Francis


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Grist, Ian
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Grylls, Michael
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Mellor, David


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Merchant, Piers


Hampson, Dr Keith
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Hanley, Jeremy
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Hannam, John
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Harris, David
Moate, Roger


Haselhurst, Alan
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Moore, John


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Hawksley, Warren
Moynihan, Hon C.


Hayes, J.
Mudd, David


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney
Murphy, Christopher


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Neale, Gerrard


Heddle, John
Needham, Richard


Henderson, Barry
Nelson, Anthony


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Neubert, Michael


Hickmet, Richard
Newton, Tony


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Nicholls, Patrick


Hind, Kenneth
Norris, Steven


Hirst, Michael
Onslow, Cranley


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Osborn, Sir John


Holt, Richard
Ottaway, Richard


Hordern, Sir Peter
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Howard, Michael
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Parris, Matthew


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abdgn)


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Pollock, Alexander


Hunter, Andrew
Portillo, Michael


Irving, Charles
Powell, William (Corby)


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Powley, John


Jessel, Toby
Price, Sir David


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Prior, Rt Hon James


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Raffan, Keith


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Key, Robert
Rathbone, Tim


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Renton, Tim


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Rhodes James, Robert


Knowles, Michael
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Lamont, Norman
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Latham, Michael
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Lawler, Geoffrey
Rifkind, Malcolm


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Roe, Mrs Marion





Rossi, Sir Hugh
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Rost, Peter
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Rowe, Andrew
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Ryder, Richard
Thornton, Malcolm


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Thurnham, Peter


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Scott, Nicholas
Tracey, Richard


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Trippier, David


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Trotter, Neville


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shersby, Michael
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Silvester, Fred
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Sims, Roger
Viggers, Peter


Skeet, T. H. H.
Waddington, David


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Walden, George


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Speller, Tony
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Spencer, Derek
Wall, Sir Patrick


Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Waller, Gary


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Ward, John


Squire, Robin
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Stanbrook, Ivor
Watson, John


Stanley, John
Watts, John


Steen, Anthony
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Stern, Michael
Wheeler, John


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Whitfield, John


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Whitney, Raymond


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Wiggin, Jerry


Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)
Wolfson, Mark


Stokes, John
Wood, Timothy


Stradling Thomas, J.
Woodcock, Michael


Sumberg, David
Yeo, Tim


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Taylor, John (Solihull)



Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Mr. Ian Lang and


Temple-Morris, Peter
Mr. John Major.


Terlezki, Stefan



NOES


Alton, David
Cohen, Harry


Anderson, Donald
Coleman, Donald


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Conlan, Bernard


Ashdown, Paddy
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)


Ashton, Joe
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Corbett, Robin


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Corbyn, Jeremy


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cowans, Harry


Barnett, Guy
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Barron, Kevin
Craigen, J. M.


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Beith, A. J.
Dalyell, Tam


Bell, Stuart
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Benn, Tony
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Bermingham, Gerald
Deakins, Eric


Bidwell, Sydney
Dewar, Donald


Blair, Anthony
Dixon, Donald


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Dobson, Frank


Boyes, Roland
Dormand, Jack


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dubs, Alfred


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Duffy, A, E. P.


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Eadie, Alex


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Eastham, Ken


Bruce, Malcolm
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Buchan, Norman
Ewing, Harry


Caborn, Richard
Fatchett, Derek


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Faulds, Andrew


Campbell, Ian
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Fisher, Mark


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Flannery, Martin


Cartwright, John
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Forrester, John


Clarke, Thomas
Foster, Derek


Clay, Robert
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Freud, Clement






Garrett, W. E.
O'Brien, William


George, Bruce
O'Neill, Martin


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Godman, Dr Norman
Park, George


Golding, John
Parry, Robert


Gould, Bryan
Patchett, Terry


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Pavitt, Laurie


Hancock, Mr. Michael
Pendry, Tom


Hardy, Peter
Pike, Peter


Harman, Ms Harriet
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Prescott, John


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Radice, Giles


Heffer, Eric S.
Randall, Stuart


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Redmond, M.


Home Robertson, John
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Howells, Geraint
Richardson, Ms Jo


Hoyle, Douglas
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Robertson, George


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Janner, Hon Greville
Rogers, Allan


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)
Rooker, J. W.


John, Brynmor
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Johnston, Sir Russell
Rowlands, Ted


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Sedgemore, Brian


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Sheerman, Barry


Kennedy, Charles
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Kirkwood, Archy
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Leighton, Ronald
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Skinner, Dennis


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Litherland, Robert
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Snape, Peter


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Soley, Clive


Loyden, Edward
Steel, Rt Hon David


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Stott, Roger


McKelvey, William
Strang, Gavin


Maclennan, Robert
Straw, Jack


McNamara, Kevin
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


McTaggart, Robert
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


McWilliam, John
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Madden, Max
Tinn, James


Marek, Dr John
Wallace, James


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Maxton, John
Wareing, Robert


Maynard, Miss Joan
White, James


Meacher, Michael
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Meadowcroft, Michael
Winnick, David


Michie, William
Woodall, Alec


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)



Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Tellers for the Noes:


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Nellist, David
Mr. Allen McKay.


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Question accordingly agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth agree with the remaining Lords amendments. — [Mr. Patrick Jenkin.]

The House divided: Ayes 320, Noes 185.

Division No. 264]
[12.26 am


AYES


Adley, Robert
Baldry, Tony


Aitken, Jonathan
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Alexander, Richard
Batiste, Spencer


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bellingham, Henry


Amess, David
Bendall, Vivian


Ancram, Michael
Best, Keith


Ashby, David
Bevan, David Gilroy


Aspinwall, Jack
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Biggs-Davison, Sir John


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Body, Richard


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Bottomley, Peter





Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Grant, Sir Anthony


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Greenway, Harry


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gregory, Conal


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Grist, Ian


Bright, Graham
Grylls, Michael


Brinton, Tim
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Hanley, Jeremy


Browne, John
Hannam,John


Bruinvels, Peter
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Bryan, Sir Paul
Harris, David


Buck, Sir Antony
Haselhurst, Alan


Budgen, Nick
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Burt, Alistair
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Butcher, John
Hawksley, Warren


Butler, Hon Adam
Hayes, J.


Butterfill, John
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Henderson, Barry


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Cash, William
Hickmet, Richard


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Chapman, Sydney
Hind, Kenneth


Chope, Christopher
Hirst, Michael


Churchill, W. S.
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Holt, Richard


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Howard, Michael


Clegg, Sir Walter
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Cockeram, Eric
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Colvin, Michael
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Coombs, Simon
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Cope, John
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Corrie, John
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Couchman, James
Hunter, Andrew


Cranborne, Viscount
Irving, Charles


Crouch, David
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jessel, Toby


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dicks, Terry
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Dorrell, Stephen
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Dover, Den
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Key, Robert


Dunn, Robert
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Durant, Tony
King, Rt Hon Tom


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Eggar, Tim
Knowles, Michael


Emery, Sir Peter
Lamont, Norman


Evennett, David
Lang, Ian


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Latham, Michael


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lawler, Geoffrey


Fallon, Michael
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Farr, Sir John
Lee, John (Pendle)


Favell, Anthony
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Fletcher, Alexander
Lightbown, David


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lilley, Peter


Forman, Nigel
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Forth, Eric
Lord, Michael


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lyell, Nicholas


Fox, Marcus
McCrindle, Robert


Franks, Cecil
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Macfarlane, Neil


Freeman, Roger
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Fry, Peter
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Gale, Roger
Maclean, David John


Galley, Roy
McQuarrie, Albert


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Madel, David


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Major, John


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Malins, Humfrey


Glyn, Dr Alan
Malone, Gerald


Goodlad, Alastair
Maples, John


Gow, Ian
Marland, Paul


Gower, Sir Raymond
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)






Mates, Michael
Shersby, Michael


Maude, Hon Francis
Silvester, Fred


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Sims, Roger


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Skeet, T. H. H.


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Mellor, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Merchant, Piers
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Speller, Tony


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Spencer, Derek


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Moate, Roger
Squire, Robin


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Stanbrook, Ivor


Moore, John
Stanley, John


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Steen, Anthony


Moynihan, Hon C.
Stern, Michael


Mudd, David
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Murphy, Christopher
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Neale, Gerrard
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Needham, Richard
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Nelson, Anthony
Stokes, John


Neubert, Michael
Stradling Thomas, J.


Newton, Tony
Sumberg, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Norris, Steven
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Onslow, Cranley
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Osborn, Sir John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Ottaway, Richard
Terlezki, Stefan


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Parris, Matthew
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abdgn)
Thornton, Malcolm


Pattie, Geoffrey
Thurnham, Peter


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Tracey, Richard


Pollock, Alexander
Trippier, David


Portillo, Michael
Trotter, Neville


Powell, William (Corby)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Powley, John
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Price, Sir David
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Prior, Rt Hon James
Viggers, Peter


Proctor, K. Harvey
Waddington, David


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Raffan, Keith
Walden, George


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Rathbone, Tim
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Wall, Sir Patrick


Renton, Tim
Waller, Gary


Rhodes James, Robert
Ward, John


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Watson, John


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Watts, John


Rifkind, Malcolm
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Wheeler, John


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Whitfield, John


Roe, Mrs Marion
Whitney, Raymond


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Wiggin, Jerry


Rost, Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Rowe, Andrew
Wood, Timothy


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Woodcock, Michael


Ryder, Richard
Yeo, Tim


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy



Scott, Nicholas
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Mr. Carol Mather and


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Mr. Robert Boscawen.


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)



NOES


Alton, David
Barron, Kevin


Anderson, Donald
Beckett, Mrs Margaret


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Beith, A. J.


Ashdown, Paddy
Bell, Stuart


Ashton, Joe
Benn, Tony


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bermingham, Gerald


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Bidwell, Sydney


Barnett, Guy
Blair, Anthony





Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)


Boyes, Roland
John, Brynmor


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Johnston, Sir Russell


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Kennedy, Charles


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Bruce, Malcolm
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Buchan, Norman
Kirkwood, Archy


Caborn, Richard
Leighton, Ronald


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Campbell, Ian
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Litherland, Robert


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cartwright, John
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Loyden, Edward


Clarke, Thomas
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Clay, Robert
McKelvey, William


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Maclennan, Robert


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
McNamara, Kevin


Cohen, Harry
McTaggart, Robert


Coleman, Donald
McWilliam, John


Conlan, Bernard
Madden, Max


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Marek, Dr John


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Corbett, Robin
Maxton, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Maynard, Miss Joan


Cowans, Harry
Meacher, Michael


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Meadowcroft, Michael


Craigen, J. M.
Michie, William


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Dalyell, Tam
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Nellist, David


Deakins, Eric
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Dewar, Donald
O'Brien, William


Dixon, Donald
O'Neill, Martin


Dobson, Frank
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Dormand, Jack
Park, George


Dubs, Alfred
Parry, Robert


Duffy, A. E. P.
Patchett, Terry


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Pavitt, Laurie


Eadie, Alex
Pendry, Tom


Eastham, Ken
Pike, Peter


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Ewing, Harry
Prescott, John


Fatchett, Derek
Radice, Giles


Faulds, Andrew
Randall, Stuart


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Redmond, M.


Fisher, Mark
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Flannery, Martin
Richardson, Ms Jo


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Forrester, John
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Foster, Derek
Robertson, George


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Rogers, Allan


Freud, Clement
Rooker, J. W.


Garrett, W. E.
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


George, Bruce
Rowlands, Ted


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Sedgemore, Brian


Godman, Dr Norman
Sheerman, Barry


Golding, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Gould, Bryan
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Hancock, Mr. Michael
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Hardy, Peter
Skinner, Dennis


Harman, Ms Harriet
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Snape, Peter


Heffer, Eric S.
Soley, Clive


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Home Robertson, John
Stott, Roger


Howells, Geraint
Strang, Gavin


Hoyle, Douglas
Straw, Jack


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Tinn, James


Janner, Hon Greville
Wallace, James






Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Wareing, Robert



White, James
Tellers for the Noes:


Williams, Rt Hon A.
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Winnick, David
Mr. Allen McKay.


Woodall, Alec

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 49 to 68, 71, 72, and 74 to 98 agreed to.

Ordered,
That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments.—[Mr. Patrick Jenkin.]

Ordered,
That Mr. Secretary Jenkin, Mr. Kenneth Baker, Mr. Tim Sainsbury, Mr. Peter Snape and Mr. Jack Straw be members of the Committee.—[Mr. Patrick Jenkin.]

Ordered,
That Three he the Quorum of the Committee — [Mr. Patrick Jenkin.]

Ordered,
That the Committee do withdraw immediately. — [Mr. Patrick Jenkin.]

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

OBSERVATION OF TRANSPORT MARKETS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 80(5) (Standing Committees on European Community documents.)
That this House takes note of European Community documents Nos. 12451/80 and 9826/84 concerning observation of markets for freight transport by road, rail and inland waterway and of the Department of Transport's explanatory memorandum of November 1984; and supports the Government's opposition to the proposal to make the market observation system permanent.—[Mr. Durant.]
Question agreed to.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 79(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).
That the draft Job Release Act 1977 (Continuation) Order 1985, which was laid before this House on 18th June, be approved.—[Mr. Durant.]
Question agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the practice of the House as to the intervals between stages of Bills brought in upon Ways and Means Resolutions, more than one stage of the Finance Bill may be taken at any sitting of the House.—[Mr. Durant.]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL (REASONS COMMITTEE)

Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

Orders of the Day — Westland

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Durant.]

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: The subject of this Adjournment debate is the future of Westland, but first the House may want to know of another future, which was established not many hours ago. I am told that at 10.20 this evening the wife of my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) gave birth to a daughter, Helen Grace. I am sure that the House will wish to assure the hon. Member, his wife and Helen Grace of its best wishes.
I am grateful for the opportunity of this debate. I am also grateful to the Minister for Information Technology for his attendance, particularly in view of his past contact with Westland as Minister for Defence Procurement, and to other hon. Members who have agreed to take part in the debate and join me in supporting Westland. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) may seek to catch your eye later on, Mr. Deputy Speaker, from the Government Benches, as may the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) from the Labour Front Bench and my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross).
It must be very nearly unprecedented to have so many hon. Members take part in an Adjournment debate. I hope that the Minister will recognise the cross-party support for Westland that this indicates. What is also, I suspect, practically unprecedented is to have such a degree of outside interest taken in such a debate at such a late hour. Nearly 40 of the Westland work force travelled up especially from Yeovil and elsewhere after work today to attend this half hour debate and to show their support for their company and their belief and pride in the work that they do.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he should not refer to strangers in the Gallery.

Mr. Ashdown: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for referring to anybody who may or may not be in the Strangers Gallery. I merely wanted to show that there is support for Westland outside the House. I am sure the Minister recognises that their effort demonstrates the kind of commitment that is one of the greatest strengths of Westland.
This is at once the most difficult speech that I have made in the House and perhaps the most important. Westland is not only the pride of my community, and of others in the west of England; it is also the source of much of our prosperity. But more than that, Westland has served Her Majesty's forces as one of the nation's principal defence industries, with exceptional distinction, most recently in the Falklands, where our helicopters were recognised by all, from the Secretary of State for Defence to the ordinary Royal Marine in the field, to have been one of the principal causes of our victory.
Westland is our only national helicopter manufacturer and our only hope for major participation in the European collaborative helicopter projects of the 1990s. Westland is one of the key components of Britain's aerospace industry. It is one of our nation's first centres of the new technology. Its work force, from specialised design teams to those


using the newest technologies on the production line, is loyal, skilled, committed, proud of its work and confident that, as a team, it can keep Britain at the forward edge of world skills in the future.
In short, Westland is not just vital to Yeovil. It is vital to Britain. The first thing, the chief thing, that I want the Minister to do tonight is to say just that: to say to those listening outside that the Government believe that Westland is an important national asset and that they are committed to playing their role in maintaining the overall integrity of the company.
I know, as the Minister knows, that the Government have a confidential report confirming the importance of Westland. I know also that the Minister's Department has shown its confidence in the company by investing in the development of the W30. I know that, whatever the Ministry of Defence does, his Department will want to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that that investment is not lost.
Why is it, then, that throughout the recent crisis we heard not one word from the Government to strengthen the company's position? Why is it that the Government stayed silent and allowed those in City boardrooms a free hand to play fast and loose with a great company's reputation and the livelihood of thousands of workers? Let the Minister tonight make good that deficiency. He knows the company's underlying strength. He knows that its long-term prospects are excellent. He knows that we have a new chairman in Sir John Cuckney. He knows that there is now, throughout Westland, a grim determination to do all that is necessary to ensure the company's future. Let the Government make their contribution tonight by committing themselves, in terms that cannot be misunderstood, to playing their part with the work force and the management to ensure that future.
Let the Minister recognise that one of the chief ways in which the Government can show that commitment is to make a decision soon about the AST404. Is it not the case that Westland has put in the most effective bid for this order? Did not its submission for an uprated W30 meet that specification in detail and in full? Is it not the case that Westland was the only British participant in the competition, and that in purchase price and running costs it was cheaper than the others by up to 30 per cent.? Is not the W30 300 series the best aircraft of its sort in the world, with considerable foreign sales potential? Is it not the case, for example, that Spain, Scandinavia and Australia are almost certainly ready to buy the Westland aircraft as soon as the British Government make up their mind?
The Minister knows that these facts are true. Why, then, just at the moment when Westland was about to put the ball in the net, have the Government allowed the Army and the Ministry of Defence to move the goal posts? Is that an appropriate way to treat a great company which has served Britain so well? I ask the Minister to give us an assurance that he will use his best endeavours to ensure that the AST404 decision is taken soon and in favour of Westland. He should realise that his answer can make a great contribution to a great company, can help sustain prosperity and jobs in the west of England, can support one of our nation's key sectors and can strengthen Britain's defence.
Westland is not seeking charity, nor special treatment — it needs neither. We are asking for a fair chance to

do what we do best—make the best helicopters in the world for Britain's defence. All the ingredients are there to ensure the company's future: the product is excellent; the work force is dedicated; the management has a new look; and the determination is evident. All that is missing is a clear commitment from the Government to join us to secure that future. I ask the Minister to provide that tonight.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: I thank the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and my hon. Friend the Minister for allowing me to intervene briefly. I initially questioned the desirability of debating this subject tonight, but I am sure that, given the all-party agreement about which the hon. Gentleman spoke — I agreed with almost everything that he said — we can produce a positive message.
My hon. Friends the Members for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) and for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer) have been assiduous in supporting the view that I shall put across. I think that there is all-party agreement on the fundamental necessity for impressing upon the world Britain's confidence in its single helicopter manufacturer.
Let us be frank — Boeing, Bell, Sikorsky, Aerospatiale, Agusta and MBB have had great difficulty in selling new helicopters. Westland is no exception in supplying a product to an overcrowded market. There has been a baring of the cupboard, and that is all. There has been a revelation as a result of a well-intentioned bid, adding substantial sums of private money to the company's resources. As is the wont of the financial journalists in the City, there has been a slight fluttering in the dove cotes. That is all.
Westland is paying its bill and wages and producing the goods today as it was eight or 10 weeks ago before this incident. The company has grasped this nettle and is having a financial spring clean. There is nothing wrong with that. Westland will not be the first company to examine itself. At the moment, its bankers are standing by it, and that is good and proper.
There is no better person than my hon. Friend the Minister, with his previous experience, to know the ins and outs of the matter and the problems and benefits of Westland helicopters. They are a fine product, and the company has a fine record and fine work force. It will continue to have those advantages. I believe, from my experience, that the services do not understand the helicopter's merits. In previous speeches I have pointed out the relative views taken by other countries of this weapon.
It is all very well for Ministers to say that the services know best. I remind the Minister that the tank was devised by the First Lord of the Admiralty, who was a politician. The British Army went to war on horses in 1939, and 16 of our ships were hit by second world war aeroplanes during the Falklands war. There are moments when politicians sometimes have to know best. I could say that AST404, which was well understood for many years in the Ministry of Defence, is really a bad story of changed minds by senior people at the last minute, which leaves British industry wringing its hands. Furthermore, I pull the leg of my hon. Friend and ask: if the W30 is unsuitable for the British Army, why not offer it to South Africa? I feel that might cause troubles, and then the argument might get turned on its head.
I hope that the Indian order still comes through. It is not impossible. There are uses for this helicopter; it could be bought. There is just one small problem.
I hope that my hon. Friend will spell out a message of confidence in this great company tonight. That is all that it asks. It asks its principal customer, the Government, and its principal investor, the Government, to have confidence in Westland.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I thank the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) for giving us all the opportunity to take part in the debate, and the Minister for Information Technology for conceding some of his time for it.
I join the hon. Member for Yeovil in congratulating his hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) on the birth of a daughter. I assure his hon. Friend that, although she might be a delight now, as girls grow older they become more troublesome, until they get married, and I am told that after that they are always a delight.
Westland is a company of which this country should be proud. It is at the forefront of aerospace technology and is the country's only helicopter and hovercraft manufacturer. Nearly all the helicopters which saw service in the South Atlantic campaign were provided by Westland. Without its products there would not have been a victory, and this country owes a great debt of gratitude not only to the people who flew and fought with the helicopters, but to the work force which backed them up.
Since 1982, about 600 or more jobs have been lost, 500 in the last year, and 300 at Yeovil. About one quarter of Yeovil's work force — members of the Transport and General Workers union, the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs and, the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers, the Transport Aircraft Servicing Specialist and other unions — have been employed on the W30 on the strength of anticipated orders from the Ministry of Defence. But now the goalposts have been moved, and we have not really been told why, although some vague, strange reasons about the changes in the Army's demands have come forward.
I put it to the House that the real problem is Trident. The demands made by the Trident programme are affecting every purchase and procurement by the Government. The Royal Air Force is seeking to shed some of its responsibilities because of its £400 million overspend. I notice that it has already passed its responsibility for the Super Harrier to the Navy, and it is doing the same with the tactical transport helicopter to the Army.
We have to ask, as did the hon. Member for Yeovil and the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) why the Government have taken no interest whatsoever in the bidding that has taken place for the future of the company. At £50 million it is a snip for whoever wants it, as Flight International said, yet no major British company has come forward to seek to buy it. Is it because the Government are not prepared to confirm orders to give the company a chance to meet the technological needs of the Army and of the industry and to maintain our own independent service? Is it that they are just not bothered, or is it, because of the pressures on the Ministry of Defence, that they are prepared to buy things off the shelf from the Americans or from other suppliers rather than go

forward and maintain what is important for our own strategic employment industries—our own separate and independent helicopter industry? We are talking not just about the future of a number of planes, important though they are, but about the maintenance of an important strategic industry in the country.
We have been told that pressure is being brought to bear to use the Chinook instead of a smaller lighter helicopter, but this does not appear to make any military sense in terms of strategic interest, particularly on the central front. I grant that Chinook is important for its lift capacity, but its primary purpose is as a heavy logistic transporter. It is the battlefield bus, as opposed to the battlefield taxi. It is what the Army is, and was, looking for until the pressure came to bear on the Ministry of Defence.
Heavier helicopters are much more vulnerable to ground fire, which was responsible for the loss of so many helicopters by the Russians in Afghanistan. We have to expect our new helicopters to meet the challenge of the light, quick tactical helicopters on the central front which the Russians are developing. We must be in a position to meet that challenge. It does not make sense to develop a heavy helicopter capable of carrying 44 men when one wants to deliver a platoon of about a dozen or so to important tactical positions on the western front or to confront a terrorist attack.
To deny the Army a tactical transport helicopter is to deny our Army the flexibility and manoeuvrability needed to counter changes in Soviet strategy. That is the important point which we must bear in mind. It is the nature of the helicopter about which we are concerned, its importance to the Army and its role therein, rather than looking for a heavy large helicopter which is vulnerable to ground fire and attack. We should address ourselves to proper military needs instead of acceding to the Ministry of Defence's desire to buy off the shelf in dribs and drabs as it thinks money is available. In so doing it is not recognising the importance of maintaining our helicopter industry.
The Government should say that there is a need to maintain our interest and control over Westland so that we can maintain the industry for the country's defence and maintain the work force at the frontiers of high technology, in which helicopter design and manufacture have a prominent place. Whatever happens, the Government must maintain our control of Westland m Britain. It must not be allowed to pass out of existence or into foreign control.

Mr. Stephen Ross: The Minister for Information Technology has had a long day, because he has already had his ear bent by two senior executives of British Hovercraft Corporation during his visit to my constituency about 12 hours ago. I wish to support everything that has been said so ably so far in the debate. I remind the Minister that Westland is the largest industrial employer on the Isle of Wight, with a work force of about 1,500. Anything up to 200 subcontractors of various sorts on the island look to the company for much of their bread and butter. I remind the hon. Gentleman also that in February the average unemployment rate on the island was 17·3 per cent.
The skills of the work force at Westland are undoubted. There is £60 million worth of orders on the Isle of Wight from BHC, Shorts, Boeing and De Havilland among others. That bears witness to the ability and the skills of


the work force. The work is mostly in the composite sector and it is carried out in works which were only recently modernised at a cost to Westland of about £5 million. It is referred to as a centre of excellence and I believe that to be right.
Hovercraft orders are few and far between but that is hardly the fault of Westland, which has tried everthing that it knows to persuade the Royal Navy of their importance in mine counter-measures work. The principal message that both management and men at East Cowes wish me to convey to the House is the need to keep the firm together. Please do not hive off parts of what is, by common consent, a highly successful company, because of a hiccup over a particular helicopter order. The flexibility within the firm is its strength from the point of view of BHC.

The Minister for Information Technology (Mr. Geoffrey Pattie): The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) has initiated an important debate that is reflected by the extremely high attendance in the Chamber. The House will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) and the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) for their contributions. I know that Westland receives tremendous support from many hon. Members, especially from my hon. Friends the Members for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer), and for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), who are all present in the Chamber. The same can be said of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset and Frome (Mr. Boscawen), whose position as a Government Whip does not allow him to participate in our debates. My hon. Friend is in his place and he gives considerable support to the company.
The concern for Westland that has been expressed by all those who have participated in the debate is one that is shared by the Government both from the point of view of my own Department and from the somewhat different standpoint of the Ministry of Defence. I wish to clarify the role of my Department in relation to the company and to correct any misapprehensions that there might be on that score.
My Department has a general sponsorship role towards the company, as it has towards other private sector firms. I have much in mind the importance of Westland as an employer, especially in the south-west of England, and as a company upon which many equipment firms depend for their business.
Britain has historically been a leader in aerospace technology. It has a well-established capability in airframes, engines and equipment for both fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft. Westland has a distinguished place in this history. The maintenance of this position depends, as Westland recognises, on being competitive in world markets. It is worth recalling that Westland has made considerable achievements in the export market, often assisted by Government support in the difficult negotiations which such deals inevitably involve. I and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement have taken part at various times in those export negotiations in various parts of the world, in support of Westland.
Since 1960, Westland expertise in naval helicopters has secured 60 per cent. of the light helicopter market outside the United States, with sales of Lynx, and previously Wasps. It has also secured some 30 per cent. of the medium helicopter market with sales of Sea King. In total, some 250 Westland helicopters are in service in some 17 countries around the world, a record that speaks for itself.
We in the Department of Trade and Industry are investing large amounts of money by way of launch aid for Westland's civil helicopter projects. The agreement in relation to the W30 provides for launch aid of £41 million, of which nearly £35 million has already been paid. The civil version of the EH101 helicopter, which Westland is developing in collaboration with the Italian company Augusta, will receive launch aid of up to £60 million, of which £4 million has so far been paid.
That investment surely demonstrates that the Government are giving the company tangible support in its efforts to break into the civil helicopter market. I remind the House that the EH101 agreement with Italy is supported by an intergovernmental memorandum of understanding.
Without doubting the sincerity of what the hon. Member for Yeovil says or his right to raise the matter, I should like to say that he shares with all of us a responsibility not to say anything either here or outside the House that might have a damaging effect on the company, which we all value. Two points that he made rather surprised me. First, he said that the Government had stayed silent during the period when a bid was taking place for the company, as indeed we did. I ask him and the House rhetorically, in the interests of time, to surmise what else would have been proper for us to do. When a private company is the subject of a bid there is no way that the Government can take a view one way or the other.
Secondly, on the AST404, which is within the prerogative of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, whom I am glad to have with me on the Front Bench tonight, I do not have anything formally to add to what he said in answer to questions in the House on 2 July. However, I should like to tell the hon. Gentleman that the letters AST—I am not trying to be offensive when I spell this out, because it might be helpful to the House — stand for air staff target, and target in defence procurement terms means just that. It is an original concept that is being devised by the services, with a possibility of it being met.
According to the processes in the Ministry of Defence, when further refinement of the staff target takes place, it becomes known as a staff requirement—an ASR, GSR or NSR. At that point, and at that point only, can a document be put out for a competition to be held. The hon. Gentleman might say that there has been a bid, it was 30 per cent. cheaper, or it was the best bid, but that is not so. There has not yet been any question of a competition. If there was an ASR in existence, we would be a stage closer to having a competition, but that stage has not been reached.
The hon. Gentleman must be careful in what he says, at about fanning up the anxieties of the work force of Westland's and his constituents, and suggesting that the company has made a bid when it has not, and that it has entered a competition when there has not been one. That needs to be fairly and clearly stated. As for suggesting that the goal posts have been moved, the Ministry of Defence


and the Army Department are refining the staff targets, which is precisely why there is a target, as the hon. Gentleman would know from his military experience.

Mr. Ashdown: The matter must be cleared up. I hope that the Minister will recognise that equivalent anxieties about the way in which the company has been treated in this matter have come both from me and Conservative Members. Does he recognise that the Westland derivative of the W30 fulfilled the AST404 requirement, as it was laid down in detail?

Mr. Pattie: The fact that the hon. Gentleman's anxieties may be echoed by my hon. Friends may mean that several people are under a genuine misapprehension. I am not suggesting that the hon. Gentleman is culpable in this matter, but I am pointing out that two stages must be completed before there is a competition. In suggesting that we should all ensure that we speak with considerable care and responsibility in this matter, I thought that it was correct to get the facts straight.
I am sure that the House would wish me to pay tribute to the contribution of Sir Basil Blackwell to the company in the past, and to offer best wishes for the future to the new chairman, Sir John Cuckney, and the acting chief executive, Hugh Stewart. Sir John has an outstanding reputation in the City and in industry. His arrival has brought stability, following the turmoil caused by the recent takeover bid and its last-minute withdrawal. It is a tribute to the inherent strength of the company that customers have remained loyal, and that there is no suggestion of any loss of confidence by creditors. Sir John will review the company's position in the light of the report that the board has commissioned from Price Waterhouse. At present, we can look forward to a period of stability and consolidation, during which Westland can redouble its efforts to promote its helicopters, especially in overseas markets. That is exactly as my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare suggested. At present, we want a period of calm.
Westland is at present actively pursuing numerous sales opportunities for helicopters abroad. The company believes that there may be potential for sales of up to 140 Lynx aircraft in Europe, the middle east, Asia, Africa and south America, for up to 10 Sea Kings in Asia and the middle east, and for W30s in the United States of America, Europe, the Gulf, Asia, Africa and Australasia.
The House will know of the efforts that Westland has made to secure contracts to supply 21 W30 helicopters to the Indian Oil and Natural Gas Corporation for offshore work, and six aircraft to the Indian Government. The British Government have taken a considerable interest in this business and have, at the request of the Indian Government, agreed that the purchase might be funded out of the aid programme. That offer still stands. The ultimate decision about what aircraft they need must of course rest with the Indian authorities.
The Ministry has outstanding orders for 18 Sea King and six Lynx helicopters, worth about £70 million. There is, of course, a continuing need for spares and support services for the helicopters currently in service, and which will remain in service for many years to come. The Ministry is currently spending some £60 million a year on such spares and support. The Ministry of Defence is also funding development of the naval version of the EF101, which is a key element in the company's future strategy.
I hope that what I have said this evening will demonstrate that the Government are not a disinterested observer in the future of the helicopter industry, but we must not forget that Westland is a private sector company. There is no Government shareholding, and it is not for the Government to intervene in the management of the company or to seek to influence the form its future should take. I believe, however, that with good management and a determination to compete effectively in world markets in collaboration with others on major projects, Westland has a good future to look forward to.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past One o' clock.